|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1864
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 11:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
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. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1865
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 12:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yeah there are quite a few things that shouldn't be on that list and i'm surprised that experienced wormholes like Corbexx and Asayanami Dei would even consider them... I mean renaming systems, sleepers skins, remove all sleeper from data/relic sites? Come one guys.
Nomads: This could tie in with the T3/T2 orca. I think when people bring this up, they want an alternative to living out of an anchored POS which allows them to be more mobile. I like this idea and a covert ops orca with a massive ship bay / fleet hangar, with allow this.
Carry scan results over session change: I think i was the one who suggested this but what i meant was, I ignore a sig, i want it to stay ignored even if i have travelled through several wormholes.
Currently, this list has the potential to do more harm than good. I think you clearly need to define the details of each suggestion so that everyone is on the same page.
Just use my list from the original thread and you're good +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1865
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 12:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maduin Shi wrote: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. This list can only be "little things" though, and a T3 rebalance is going to happen anyway, for better or worse, even though its not a little thing by any stretch of the imagination. So um, yeah. Probably can just take it off the list since its gonna happen regardless.
Maybe the little thing relating to T3s and wormhole could be:
* CSM should push to make make sure T3s aren't nerved into the ground, as it affect the economy and pvp meta. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1865
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 12:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1865
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 13:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'd be happy to help with that if they wanted. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1865
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 15:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
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. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1868
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 09:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1868
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 12:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
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. +1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1883
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 23:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Rek Seven wrote: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. Really? It would allow people to go through an eol hole w/out fear of it closing behind them? Let's just get rid of eol. Make a R-click pull down on the wh hole. When you're done w/ it you can sellect OK to close. I can usually keep my fingers off the keyboard and let other folks handle the silly ideas as appropriate (Thanks jack. I love you man... no 5hi7), but this one is just super silly. You want to take the risk out of an eol wh? You're one of the guys that came up w/ the mass range thing aren't you? (read take the risk out of ganking a rolling party) Just NO.
You're just bering stupid now. I could explain in detail why I think such an idea has a place in wormhole space but I think I would be wasting my time on you, as you're just a typical nay sayer.
Try not to get too carried away. I'm not shouting from the roof tops here and if you don't agree with what I say that's cool, there are no right or wrong answers with theory crafting.
+1 |
|
|
|