These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Re-Elect Two step to CSM 7 - Wormholes and more

First post
Author
Elen A'kram
Umbra Inceptio
#101 - 2012-02-14 21:17:18 UTC
Two step is the only sensible option to ensure your wormhole improvements happen...

And if he gets elected I'll see if I can poke him enough to get the 5th subsystem for t3 strategic cruisers (finally!).
Tahna Rouspel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2012-02-14 21:23:49 UTC
I have a few Industrial issues related to wormholes. I know it's not you're expertise, but I'd like to know your opinion.

-POS refineries; these are horrible. They take too much POS grid and cpu and have a bad output (and they also take forever to reprocess minerals). My corporation lives in a C2 wormhole and we like to do different things depending on the day. Mining might not be the most appealing occupation, but it's relaxing and it helps us provide minerals for our assembly arrays. The problem is that we have to haul everything outside and then back in. Would you change the Refinery arrays?

-Transport ships; Transport Ships and Iteron V are the optimal option for transporting goods in and out of wormholes (the orca tends to collapse wormhole) - the size of regular ship is somewhat limited though. Would you be opposed to the creation of a Transport ship that has more cargo?

-Ice Gravimetrics; You've answered this to me before by stating CCP's opinion on this, but I'd like to know if you'd like to see Ice Gravimetrics inside wormholes - or do you agree with CCP that Ice is necessary to make us leave our wormholes now and then?
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#103 - 2012-02-14 21:32:05 UTC
Tahna Rouspel wrote:
I have a few Industrial issues related to wormholes. I know it's not you're expertise, but I'd like to know your opinion.

-POS refineries; these are horrible. They take too much POS grid and cpu and have a bad output (and they also take forever to reprocess minerals). My corporation lives in a C2 wormhole and we like to do different things depending on the day. Mining might not be the most appealing occupation, but it's relaxing and it helps us provide minerals for our assembly arrays. The problem is that we have to haul everything outside and then back in. Would you change the Refinery arrays?

-Transport ships; Transport Ships and Iteron V are the optimal option for transporting goods in and out of wormholes (the orca tends to collapse wormhole) - the size of regular ship is somewhat limited though. Would you be opposed to the creation of a Transport ship that has more cargo?

-Ice Gravimetrics; You've answered this to me before by stating CCP's opinion on this, but I'd like to know if you'd like to see Ice Gravimetrics inside wormholes - or do you agree with CCP that Ice is necessary to make us leave our wormholes now and then?


Refineries are tough, because you don't want to make them better than outposts in nullsec. I would be behind lowering their cycle time, and perhaps CPU and grid (though this seems like less of an issue with the fuel blocks now), but I think making them more efficient would probably be a bad idea. One solution might be to make wormhole-only refineries that are better, but that might be a lot of dev effort.

Transport ships - I don't see a problem with their current sizes. My impel can haul 38K m3, that seems like a rather lot. There is perhaps some room between transport ships and Orcas for something that is maybe just below battleship mass but can haul 100K m3 or so. Given that CCP is now making new ships and stuff, I will suggest something like this.

Ice in wormholes - I do think it is important that wormholes are not self sufficient. People hauling stuff is often the start of some good fights, and I wouldn't want to see that removed.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

RectumRanger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#104 - 2012-02-15 03:14:45 UTC
Good luck Two Step, you have my vote. Smile

I would also like the see a change to refineries because of the problems mentioned above.
Bei ArtJay
Side Kicks
Unspoken Alliance.
#105 - 2012-02-15 10:44:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bei ArtJay
+ 1 like for someone who clearly cares about the game for all and not their own interests. Not enough of you around.

Quick couple of questions that spring to mind that I would like your opinion on:

With regards to your discussion on wh-stabilisers on your blog. I agree with you that wormhole systems are entirely possible to invade and are by no means safe, particularly with pre-inserting dreadnoughts into C5&6 wormholes. However for C4 and under, the only realistic method of taking out well defended systems is to bring in a huge blob of battleships or drakes. As with all w-space combat, keeping fleets under the number of around 20-30 pilots is ideal. Do you have any proposals to make things less safe for corps who have good populations, numerous POS and capitals in lower class systems? I heard somewhere the idea of having T3 battleships that are able to use siege mods, or removing the ability to anchor capital building arrays in C1-4?

I really like your idea of C4+C5 wh's having dual statics, and would like to expand on that by asking if you think C1's and C3's should also?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2012-02-15 11:26:15 UTC
Please get CCP to allow us to change clones in WH space. If you have a rorqual in system you should be able to fly up to it and swap to a different clone.
Eveess
ChemiKals
Xenta.
#107 - 2012-02-15 11:35:47 UTC
Rahkashi wrote:
Chitsa Jason wrote:
Two step wrote:
Oxandrolone wrote:
Considering voteing for you, we do need a wormhole candidate of some kind. Are you going to push for a change in the self distruct mechanic?

Not being able to s/d within a pos shield would cause alot more fights. Also i think when you self distruct it should turn off all your active mods, its incredibly anoying to watch cap ships self distruct over and over again because you cant drain them of cap and dps them down within 2 minutes.


I agree that SDing within a POS shield should not be allowed. I would love to see longer SD timers for cap ships. I have also proposed to CCP that activating SD locks all your racks on overheating, which would burn out the mods before you go down.


My alliance feels very strongly about this as we are not only wspace residents but mercs as well. No SD in POS shields would make system invasions way more fun.


No SD'ing in POS shields, and SD'ing still generates a killmail if aggressed pehaps?



+1 for this statement we need to sort sding caps in wh it makes it to easy for these bears to save face 3 votes from me two step keep up the good work
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#108 - 2012-02-15 12:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: corbexx
i like the idea of sd giving kill mails and who ever the pilot is shoudl appear on the mail with the remaining about of damge left on the ship.

i'd love sd in pos's stopped but alteast wiith idea above you could see just how much people lost
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#109 - 2012-02-15 13:23:32 UTC
Bei ArtJay wrote:
+ 1 like for someone who clearly cares about the game for all and not their own interests. Not enough of you around.

Quick couple of questions that spring to mind that I would like your opinion on:

With regards to your discussion on wh-stabilisers on your blog. I agree with you that wormhole systems are entirely possible to invade and are by no means safe, particularly with pre-inserting dreadnoughts into C5&6 wormholes. However for C4 and under, the only realistic method of taking out well defended systems is to bring in a huge blob of battleships or drakes. As with all w-space combat, keeping fleets under the number of around 20-30 pilots is ideal. Do you have any proposals to make things less safe for corps who have good populations, numerous POS and capitals in lower class systems? I heard somewhere the idea of having T3 battleships that are able to use siege mods, or removing the ability to anchor capital building arrays in C1-4?

I really like your idea of C4+C5 wh's having dual statics, and would like to expand on that by asking if you think C1's and C3's should also?


Thanks for your support.

My original request was for Tech 2, Tier 2 Battlecruisers that could fit a single XL gun/launcher, plus a siege mod. That way, you have an anti-supercap ship as well as a good POS shooter. I would still like to see this.

I don't think everything should have dual statics, just one more class of wormhole, otherwise the wormhole map would grow way too large.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#110 - 2012-02-15 13:25:05 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Please get CCP to allow us to change clones in WH space. If you have a rorqual in system you should be able to fly up to it and swap to a different clone.


If you read the December minutes, you will see that it was requested to make a new POS mod that would let you store and swap clones (not jumpclone to it, but store clones in it). If that happens, I would imagine that Rorqs should allow the same thing.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2012-02-15 16:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
That's good to hear. I read your blog btw... Good stuff. i agree with everything you said. The last thing we need is big alliances controlling WH's. I would have quit this game a long time ago if it wasn't for WH space
naed21
Iron Knights
#112 - 2012-02-15 16:53:42 UTC
As a resident of WH space, I'm putting all of my hopes and dreams into you Two Step. You have my vote, and I'm sure most of my corp feel the same as I do.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#113 - 2012-02-15 17:17:01 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
That's good to hear. I read you blog btw... Good stuff. i agree with everything you said. The last thing we need is big alliances controlling WH's. I would have quit this game a long time ago if it wasn't for WH space


I probably would have quit as well, so I will do my very best to defend the wormhole way of life.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2012-02-15 20:37:50 UTC
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#115 - 2012-02-15 21:39:27 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting


I spent a few hours discussing this exact proposal with CCP and other CSMs on Skype. I support it, and I urged CCP to implement similar mechanics.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2012-02-15 21:42:29 UTC
Two step wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting


I spent a few hours discussing this exact proposal with CCP and other CSMs on Skype. I support it, and I urged CCP to implement similar mechanics.


ty Two Step, quoted in linked thread
Psihius
Perkone
Caldari State
#117 - 2012-02-15 22:44:43 UTC
I agree with the pilot, who posted about the refineries. The difference in my opinion is that they do not have to be better - I'm personally quite fine with 75% (maybe it can get a little boost - if the pilot has all affecting skills at level 5 - it gives an additional boost of +5-7-10%. But that's just maybe). What is really messing up attempts to refine any useful amount of ore is the cycle time and the amount of resources it takes - you have to seriously compromise your defence buy switching off not only ship bays and resists, but even turrets. You can't leave your pos in that state and go to sleep.
And it's frustrating that you have to reload it every two hours. If you don't have people from different timezones - max what you can get out is 2 runs of ore refining per day (i'm talking about the guys and girls that actually have a work and a real life. In my alliance that is the case and people can't devote to EVE more that 2-3 hours at a time and not every day. Such schedule is seriously screwing any plans on using refineries - we had to dump them at this moment).
Hathrul
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#118 - 2012-02-15 23:03:19 UTC
Bei ArtJay wrote:
However for C4 and under, the only realistic method of taking out well defended systems is to bring in a huge blob of battleships or drakes. As with all w-space combat, keeping fleets under the number of around 20-30 pilots is ideal.


youre wrong

a well defended c4 or lower:

take a t3 fleet, this can be any size since those ships are tiny. get in, get wh control. bring 1 or 2 battleships, or even an orca to collapse the static, find new one, get control, bring in tower. bring in the battleships. job done
Jaiimez Skor
The Infamous.
#119 - 2012-02-15 23:40:00 UTC
This is something that concerns me, and please correct me if I have got this wrong, given what I know of the AHARM story in Nova with Rook's and King's has come from friends within RnK and the Clarion Call video's the facts I have may be totally wrong or biased, but your alliance knowingly took advantage of an exploit in the game mechanics to make yourselves virtually untouchable.

As I said, assuming the information I have been given is correct and the story is as i've been told, why should I vote for you, you as well as the other members of AHARM stood by and actively exploited a flaw in the game mechanics, my issue is why would I want to vote for a candidate that actively stands by and encourages exploiting bugs, instead of owning up and telling CCP of these issues.

As I said if any of the information I have about the story is false and I have misunderstood AHARM's side of the story then please feel free to correct me and show me proof that I have misunderstood, as a newbie to wormholes and yet loving it on my alts, I would love to see a representative on the CSM to ensure wormholes receive love, I just don't want that person to be someone who knowingly partakes in exploiting the game.

note: I do not intend to start any kind of argument nor any kind of fighting on this thread, it is a valid concern of mine I would like answered so please do not take it as attempting to provoke a fight.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#120 - 2012-02-15 23:46:40 UTC
Jaiimez Skor wrote:
This is something that concerns me, and please correct me if I have got this wrong, given what I know of the AHARM story in Nova with Rook's and King's has come from friends within RnK and the Clarion Call video's the facts I have may be totally wrong or biased, but your alliance knowingly took advantage of an exploit in the game mechanics to make yourselves virtually untouchable.

As I said, assuming the information I have been given is correct and the story is as i've been told, why should I vote for you, you as well as the other members of AHARM stood by and actively exploited a flaw in the game mechanics, my issue is why would I want to vote for a candidate that actively stands by and encourages exploiting bugs, instead of owning up and telling CCP of these issues.

As I said if any of the information I have about the story is false and I have misunderstood AHARM's side of the story then please feel free to correct me and show me proof that I have misunderstood, as a newbie to wormholes and yet loving it on my alts, I would love to see a representative on the CSM to ensure wormholes receive love, I just don't want that person to be someone who knowingly partakes in exploiting the game.

note: I do not intend to start any kind of argument nor any kind of fighting on this thread, it is a valid concern of mine I would like answered so please do not take it as attempting to provoke a fight.


It is certainly a legitimate question, and one that I was asked a lot last year when I ran. I actually wrote a blog post explaining my side of the story, which you can read at http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2011/03/infinite-tracking-wtf.html

Basically, the story is a little more complicated than what R&K says in Clarion Call. I certainly bear some responsibility for AHARM's use of the exploit, but I think CCP (and some other current and former AHARM members) bear some as well.

If you still have questions or concerns after reading the blog post, feel free to ask them here, or to eve mail or convo me directly.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog