|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
758
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Reve Uhad wrote: I'm definitely not suggesting that. I'm just saying that the idea that CCP hates people who plex [because it means they don't get paid] is invalid.
There are still people in TYOOL 2014 who believe that an account being activated by PLEX somehow denies them income?
Hint: people who maintain their accounts using PLEX are actually causing CCP to profit MORE than someone who pays monthly; PLEX cost $20, and a monthly subscription costs $15/mo. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
758
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
This change is well-appreciated. It adds risk for attacking, as caps and other slow moving assets no longer have a get out of jail free card by spawning within range of the wormhole they just jumped through. It also slows down the rapacity at which established parties can cycle their wormholes and limits their ability to consume resources far afield of what they are able to control, allowing for more parties to enter wormhole space in general. All in all, a good change for the health of the game. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
758
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Some of you have cottoned onto the "emergent gameplay" angle. Emergent gameplay, while extremely cool, is also not sacrosanct. CCP is under no obligation to maintain emergent gameplay.
For examples of this, see the "Faction Five" Forex scheme -- while clearly emergent gameplay, it was also extremely harmful for the game and needed to be excised.
I dare suggest that intentionally exhausting wormholes to increase the amount of territory available for farming and raiding may fall into a similar category, that it is allowing wormhole space to support increasingly large, but increasingly fewer groups, raising the barrier of entry into w-space in the process. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Additionally, it is amusing to see the vast fields of entitlement permeating this thread -- everyone seems to believe that being able to close your wormholes, to control who gets in and out is some sort of right. Have you considered that, perhaps, it isn't actually your right to be able to control your systems in such a manner? Certainly, no one else in eve enjoys such privileges, especially since the advent of the interdiction nullified interceptor.
I agree that it was definitely nice to be able to "pick your neighbors" in such a fashion, but I also agree that it was probably not the design intent of the space, and that CCP is both well within its rights to hamper it, and is probably correct in believing that it is necessary. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:Why are Goonies commenting on this? It doesn't really effect you. Says you. There are more of us in wormholes than you. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:Querns wrote:biz Antollare wrote:Why are Goonies commenting on this? It doesn't really effect you. Says you. There are more of us in wormholes than you know. Sitting posd up or logging out when someone enters your system .... Yea nice try. So, in order for it to "effect us", we have to be consuming the content on your terms? Sorry, but that is not how it works. Your social norms mean nothing to us. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aender Wiggin wrote:Querns wrote:Additionally, it is amusing to see the vast fields of entitlement permeating this thread -- everyone seems to believe that being able to close your wormholes, to control who gets in and out is some sort of right. Have you considered that, perhaps, it isn't actually your right to be able to control your systems in such a manner? Certainly, no one else in eve enjoys such privileges, especially since the advent of the interdiction nullified interceptor.
I agree that it was definitely nice to be able to "pick your neighbors" in such a fashion, but I also agree that it was probably not the design intent of the space, and that CCP is both well within its rights to hamper it, and is probably correct in believing that it is necessary. As CCP themselves state, they don't intend to stick to a design they made 5 years ago if players themselves found a better, more ingenious use for it (barring actual abuse, which this is not or they would have stated that matter-of-factly). This is true, but conversely, they are not obligated to support it either. Neither does the time period, protracted as it was, somehow imply that the existing mechanics are sacrosanct. Consider industry -- it lied unchanged for eleven years before they changed it. Wormholes have existed for half that time; they are not inviolate. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:Querns wrote:biz Antollare wrote:Querns wrote:biz Antollare wrote:Why are Goonies commenting on this? It doesn't really effect you. Says you. There are more of us in wormholes than you know. Sitting posd up or logging out when someone enters your system .... Yea nice try. So, in order for it to "effect us", we have to be consuming the content on your terms? Sorry, but that is not how it works. Your social norms mean nothing to us. You don't deploy caps unless you are running sites. These changes don't effect you. Perhaps the ones you've directly observed have not, but I know many who have. In fact, a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal has extensively ran sites in wormholes, supported by many capital ships. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Neil DeTyson Degrassetyso wrote:I am in agreement and I will go so far as to say none of these changes really help with the bigger problem in Wspace. What Wspace really needs is a draw to get more pilots into wormholes to occupy the very EMPTY space because as it stands rage rolling was only used because there were no fights/content to be had. CCP, you are trying to "fix" the mechanics without addressing the function of Wspace. Most corps who lack the ability to field 30+ pilots to Rage-Roll post-Hyperion will stop scout their chain find nothing 9/10 times and then sit back and POS spin. I ask you this: What are you doing to fill the empty W-space? Have you considered that the very act of intentionally exhausting wormholes is causing this observed desertion? Being able to consume the anomalies and sites of multiple wormholes in series allows one group to consume the "living wage" of many other potential groups. Limiting the ability to do this leaves more wormholes fallow, allowing more groups to move in. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:So yes you just agreed with me. Goonie caps in wh space come out only for sites. Not PvP .
You certainly don't rage roll. This dovetails into your assertion that the only way a person can earn the "chops" to participate in a discussion about wormholes is to subscribe to your social mores; that the only people who are allowed to speak are those who perform a very limited subset of PvP; that those coming to w-space for PvE or non-capital-related PvP are somehow second class citizens. I refuse to accept this.
Intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is currently a fixture of both PvE and PvP and affects both gameplay facets equally. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote:Querns wrote:Additionally, it is amusing to see the vast fields of entitlement permeating this thread -- everyone seems to believe that being able to close your wormholes, to control who gets in and out is some sort of right. Have you considered that, perhaps, it isn't actually your right to be able to control your systems in such a manner? Certainly, no one else in eve enjoys such privileges, especially since the advent of the interdiction nullified interceptor.
I agree that it was definitely nice to be able to "pick your neighbors" in such a fashion, but I also agree that it was probably not the design intent of the space, and that CCP is both well within its rights to hamper it, and is probably correct in believing that it is necessary. It's more complex than you are thinking. It can be used to limit contact. Or can be used for the opposite purpose. WH rolling is sort of like cynoing, in that it expands your mobility and connectivity. And closing them and keeping them closed is sort of like cyno jamming. Except that analogy isn't accurate either, since you don't have to anchor jammers in the teeth of, and under fire from, an invading force. Now I personally feel that null was better when you had only one or two routes to HS with no cynos or bridges, and that WH's were better before everyone started realizing you could control holes. Better for me, anyway, but I can see arguments for both sides certainly depending on what the player likes to do. But I think if you are comparing WH's to gates, you aren't understanding the topic. It's not just about security, it's also about access to content, aggression... All of it. It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who does't live by it every day, no offense. No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
759
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
biz Antollare wrote:Querns wrote:biz Antollare wrote:So yes you just agreed with me. Goonie caps in wh space come out only for sites. Not PvP .
You certainly don't rage roll. This dovetails into your assertion that the only way a person can earn the "chops" to participate in a discussion about wormholes is to subscribe to your social mores; that the only people who are allowed to speak are those who perform a very limited subset of PvP; that those coming to w-space for PvE or non-capital-related PvP are somehow second class citizens. I refuse to accept this. Intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is currently a fixture of both PvE and PvP and affects both gameplay facets equally. Its not about "chops"... The big issues regarding this proposal seem to be centered around PvP with caps. Something goons doesn't do. That's all man. Not trying to get in a pissing match here. There's more to it than that -- it also has to do with the soft barrier to exhausting the mass in the first place, something that directly affects PvE -- the plankton that PvPers require. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Querns wrote: No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out.
About consuming resources far afield, if our home hole is out of sites to run, or isnt currently occupied by a roaming gang, going to another system to find content is neccesary. If my home hole is used up and empty, the holes we're connected to are used up, and empty, and getting a connection to a new hole is a huge pain and/or cost, what precisely are we supposed to do? We log out and play a different game or watch TV. I don't consider that a valid option. The ability to roll a hole to a new place is crucial to wormhole life for several reasons, reducing that means more bored wormholers that have nothing to log in for. How does one create content in eve when you're playing Leage and watching GoT? It's sort of a chicken and egg problem here, I agree -- the use of intentional mass exhaustion allows a single WH dweller group to grow a lot bigger. This means that this larger group then requires the large amount of content that they currently consume to remain engaged. However, it's not up to CCP to necessarily maintain this status quo; attrition of larger groups via this mechanic may indeed be a portion of their goal being served by this change. Of course, I don't actually know; that's just conjecture on my part. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:No that is really not the way it works, you are using Kspace experience and extrapolating, It really does not work this way at all.
Sure it is -- assuming, of course, that the "lore" behind WH anoms is true; namely, that completing a site causes it to immediately respawn in another wormhole of the same class or "region" (I've heard multiple versions.) Consider C6s -- most of these systems are populated and C6 dwellers typically report a high rate of respawn for anomalies. Compare this to C5s, which are more numerous, and often require intentional mass exhaustion to locate sites. This is a classic example of one behavior affecting the other; exhausting the wormhole mass allows you to consume the resources that are being concentrated in fallow systems by this overconsumption in the first place. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Querns wrote: Sure it is -- assuming, of course, that the "lore" behind WH anoms is true; namely, that completing a site causes it to immediately respawn in another wormhole of the same class or "region" (I've heard multiple versions.) Consider C6s -- most of these systems are populated and C6 dwellers typically report a high rate of respawn for anomalies. Compare this to C5s, which are more numerous, and often require intentional mass exhaustion to locate sites. This is a classic example of one behavior affecting the other; exhausting the wormhole mass allows you to consume the resources that are being concentrated in fallow systems by this overconsumption in the first place.
fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible. Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:Querns wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Querns wrote: Sure it is -- assuming, of course, that the "lore" behind WH anoms is true; namely, that completing a site causes it to immediately respawn in another wormhole of the same class or "region" (I've heard multiple versions.) Consider C6s -- most of these systems are populated and C6 dwellers typically report a high rate of respawn for anomalies. Compare this to C5s, which are more numerous, and often require intentional mass exhaustion to locate sites. This is a classic example of one behavior affecting the other; exhausting the wormhole mass allows you to consume the resources that are being concentrated in fallow systems by this overconsumption in the first place.
fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible. Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion. Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion. Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V
(contrivance ahoy) This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:Querns wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion. Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V (contrivance ahoy) So we do want mass exhaustion? No, I was replying in jest to your assertion that adding moon minerals to wormholes would somehow decrease the use of mass exhaustion. It would cause it to increase; it's not like anyone would be sated solely from moon mining income, and it increases the amount of hauling that has to go in and out of the wormhole. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Necharo Rackham wrote:Querns wrote: Have you considered that the very act of intentionally exhausting wormholes is causing this observed desertion? Being able to consume the anomalies and sites of multiple wormholes in series allows one group to consume the "living wage" of many other potential groups.
How would that even happen? Even if there were a large number of groups in C5s/C6s consuming every site - the respawn mechanism would mean that there exactly as many sites at the end as there were at the beginning of the process. The fact that you can roll into C5 after unoccupied C5 with large numbers of sites (and which prior to the NPC kill information being removed you could tell hadn't been touched in weeks) indicates clearly that the mechanism you describe is not in effect. The general idea is that the act of using mass exhaustion to cycle your wormhole connections causes all of the anoms to, statistically speaking, concentrate in very small areas, rather than spreading around for more casual wormhole dwellers to find and consume. It's not a black or white thing, but rather how the anoms cluster and trend, causing a smaller number of more skilled dwellers to dominate the space, since they are able to track down and consume the content more efficiently. Putting soft barriers to mass exhaustion encourages these sites to spread out more generally, and allows for more players to consume the content. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 19:29:00 -
[19] - Quote
Angelica Everstar wrote:Something needed to be done!!! So thank you for addressing this issue.
I like the suggestion, minus I would like to see the 5km be reduced to 2.5km, so that it's in line with all other "activation" ranges. This would make so much more sense, and help make the game more consistent.
I would also like to see lowest masses having to travel a little longer, so that you can actually catch them in some cases. Along with that the higher masses be moved a bit closer, as people will have plenty of time to do something if they want to kill them or stop them. But if not challenge, will be able to come back faster This is a compromise that I can deal with. The primary goal of the change, at least how I understand it, is to ensure that ships do not land in the activation range of the wormhole. Reducing the activation range and commensurately reducing the range and mass factor for the landing locations would work, if there is a desire for caps to land within remote repair and/or capacitor transfer range of each other. I'm not sure if that last part is explicitly being discouraged as the intent of the design or is just a side effect. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 19:43:00 -
[20] - Quote
Alundil wrote:You say this as if we don't all already deal with fuel logistics issues.......we have no outposts. We all live in POSes. Every last one of us. Bringing fuel in is a life requirement, not a nice to have.
That said, F moon mining in wspace. No -- I'm acutely aware of fuel logistics difficulties in wormhole space. I was suggesting that magnifying those difficulties by multiplying the number of starbases you have to manage would lead to additional intentional mass exhaustion, undermining the assertion that adding additional revenue streams in this manner would somehow reduce or eliminate the need for the mass exhaustion in the first place, when it clearly wouldn't on account of the additional logistics workload, and the fact that adding the revenue stream would not somehow obviate the desire to make MORE money by running WH sites.
(explaining the joke is a thing I am doing a lot today) This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
761
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 22:52:00 -
[21] - Quote
Lord Blacksmith wrote:There's thirty-odd (at least) pages of feedback on this issue already. Tweaking the ranges slightly really changes nothing.
Considering the only change you are likely wanting to see is a return to the status quo, I would begin preparing yourself for disappointment. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
770
|
Posted - 2014.08.18 16:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
Glad to see the line is still being held on this important issue, despite the vocal minority posting in this thread. It reinforces that you're able to make the tough decisions in spite of a panic-stricken, emotionally-charged wall of feedback. This candor will be necessary in the months ahead. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
774
|
Posted - 2014.08.25 15:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. I wanted to post again to make sure it's clear that we are not ignoring this thread and that we will be continuing to keep a close eye on your feedback and on changes in player behavior.
I completely understand that some of you are feeling anger over the fact that we disagree about how this change will play out. We wish we could please everyone at all times but unfortunately that isn't always possible. Good to hear. Separating the actual feedback from the kneejerk reaction posting can't be easy. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
|
|