These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
36 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Distance that you're being ejected out of a wormhole depends on mass

First post First post First post
Author
#41 - 2014-08-03 16:06:39 UTC
Kynric wrote:
Zara Arran wrote:
When connected to a pvp entity, who will now dare to jump into the other WH for a fight? Especially if it is their home system?

This is bad!!


It would change the meta which is not exactly the same as the end of all life. I thought everyone was tired of t3 fleet as the fleet for every occasion? This change sounds very similar to jumping through a regional gate into another gang and that happens every day in other regions of space. Scouts get killed doing it also although it is a bit more difficult to catch them. It might even be more fun as it would greatly expand the number of viable doctrines. More options is usually more interesting. Perhaps the numbers used for spawn distance are off but conceptually I kinda like it.


In kspace (different meta)
Capital ships do not use gates.
Gates do not have mass.
Mass does not affect spawn ranges on cynos or jump bridges.


In wspace(our meta)
Caps need support ships more than anywhere else already (and this is how it should be) because there is no easy exit cyno escape.
This change places them out side of support ship range and effectively has their asses hanging out blowing in the breeze.

Furthermore, this spreads sub caps immediately. To what purpose? In heavy armor fights (most of them) multiple dps ships are needed to kill another setup group with logi support. This means it will be even easier to tank incoming damage for the defenders since the attackers will be all spread out.

Jumping capitals into a hostile fleet in wspace is a dicey proposition already with a very common tactic to attempt to bump them out of refit range, cap range, or range of the wh.
With this change all of that is unnecessary now because CCP has decided to do it for the defenders, unasked for I might add.

I'm right behind you

#42 - 2014-08-03 16:11:27 UTC
Thanks

Dead Game.

#43 - 2014-08-03 16:11:50 UTC
This is rly bad idea, bad bad idea ;/
Riplomacy
#44 - 2014-08-03 16:12:25 UTC
Makes it easier to camp a wormhole and nothing more. Also makes it so the smaller corps/fleets have less control in picking their fights.

-1 to the idea, all this is going to do is frustrate lots of people and get them to leave an already-empty wormhole space.

"Is probably the best person alive."                      -Ron Paul

You Are Being Monitored
#45 - 2014-08-03 16:12:31 UTC
Dear CCP,

Although you never intended for wormholes to be colonized, it's happened, and you need to accept this. What's made them such a fantastic content creator is the ability to connect to random areas of space on a whim, which is only truly possible by rolling wormholes.

Groups set up shop in specific systems to take advantage of the static connection. Our current ability to roll statics means we can generate our own content with ease, whenever we please. Your proposed change greatly hinders smaller groups' abilities to roll and hence would be detrimental to the wormhole community as a whole.

My group, for example, thrives off rolling our C3 static. If we jumped an orca through and it appeared 40km off the hole, it would most certainly discourage us from continuing to do so. With content disappearing, our member base will grow bored and move on. Assuming this is the norm for most smaller groups, this would lead to an exodus of wormhole space.

Now I'm sure this is not the intended effect, but this is just the latest in a long line of "features" that hurt wormhole space. There's already frustration over the jump fuel changes; the industry taxation; API kill data; and we all remember the ESS. We're all for promoting content in wormhole space, however breaking such a fundamental part of life out here is not the way to do so.

If you want to promote content in wormhole space, you need to listen to your member base. There are already lists of features requested by the community you could be working on instead of generating Sunday morning threadnaughts. This change adds no real content aside from the occasional rolling ship kill, and instead removes it by discouraging groups from utilizing statics (and even content at home).

Sincerely,
A concerned wormhole resident.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#46 - 2014-08-03 16:17:11 UTC
Janus Nanzikambe wrote:
Do
Not
Want

+1
Triumvirate.
#47 - 2014-08-03 16:17:43 UTC
This is a bad, bad idea. It's going to lead to people just sitting and orbiting their towers instead of taking the risk to roll a hole and go do something, be that trying to find a fight or doing some PvE. People are going to extract from fights instead of committing caps to try and win them. It's punishing smaller groups who need the advantage of caps, and it's going to lead to less people doing things in wormholes in general, which is the exact opposite of what you should be trying to do.

Don't make the things people are already doing more tedious, add in new things for them to do that are riskier.
#48 - 2014-08-03 16:19:47 UTC
So wormholes should be the unknown, so CCP doesn´t even communicate planned changes. Yeah that´s gonna work out great. Maybe you can add that as the new space with constructable gates: R-Space aka everything is random. Why not also add this change to cynos in k-space for an even bigger shitstorm? Imagine capitals or JFs even landing 10 km off the cynoship. Or a titan suddenly not landing on the FFedge.

Quick reflection on this change: If your dread really spawns 40km off the hole and goes 126 m/s with MWD it takes it about 6 minutes (combatfit about 70% longer) to get back to the hole. An orca should spawn around 7-9km, better selfdestruct, will save you alot of time. If you jump a dread and carrier into a fight chances are good they will not be in reprange to each other. Same for the subcaps brawling it out on the dread. Gives a completely new meaning to the word suicidetriage. Isn´t it fun to do the maths on a fight, decide it is doable, then jump in (attack something, defender has perfect positioning) and then get told by your triagepilot "Sorry guys, can´t help you. RNG made me useless."
Good thing there are never any weblokis there to make sure you will stay where you are. Want to annoy a roller that you can´t kill: Webloki full of WCS 50 off the roller and keep him there until the hole dies of old age. Add a handful of ishtars to that and the carrier is forefeight every time you jump.
While this change will definitely shake things up it will need a lot of thinking and debate wether it is helpful. It´s not like there is a list of small changes that people are begging for or a fully outlined and debated scenario (sigspawntimings) that this devtime could have been put into.
What are the three major differences between gates and wormholes: You can jump with aggression, you get polarization and unless you are really unlucky you can jump back with one pulse of your propmod. So after this change it is "J-space: Now with 33% more gates"
WE FORM V0LTA
#49 - 2014-08-03 16:22:06 UTC
D3m0n sam wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/nojWx.gif

All i have to say

"Bonjour, moi, c'est Mealtime."

Frugu, un forum FRuité

C C P Alliance
#50 - 2014-08-03 16:24:37 UTC
Good afternoon everyone.

We are indeed working on some changes to how ships spawn when they jump through wormholes. This is one part of a series of wormhole iterations we are working on and that we will be publishing a dev blog on soon. We will be looking for player feedback at that time.
The version of the code that is on SISI is absolutely not the final version, and is not running final numbers (the ranges we are working with internally are quite a bit closer than what is on this build of SISI).

We'll be posting a dev blog with the whole collection of proposed changes next week and we will be very interested in taking your feedback then. In the meantime I advise you all to not panic. Nobody is out to get you.

Hope you all have a great weekend.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#51 - 2014-08-03 16:25:00 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Kynric wrote:
Zara Arran wrote:
When connected to a pvp entity, who will now dare to jump into the other WH for a fight? Especially if it is their home system?

This is bad!!


It would change the meta which is not exactly the same as the end of all life. I thought everyone was tired of t3 fleet as the fleet for every occasion? This change sounds very similar to jumping through a regional gate into another gang and that happens every day in other regions of space. Scouts get killed doing it also although it is a bit more difficult to catch them. It might even be more fun as it would greatly expand the number of viable doctrines. More options is usually more interesting. Perhaps the numbers used for spawn distance are off but conceptually I kinda like it.


In kspace (different meta)
Capital ships do not use gates.
Gates do not have mass.
Mass does not affect spawn ranges on cynos or jump bridges.


In wspace(our meta)
Caps need support ships more than anywhere else already (and this is how it should be) because there is no easy exit cyno escape.
This change places them out side of support ship range and effectively has their asses hanging out blowing in the breeze.

Furthermore, this spreads sub caps immediately. To what purpose? In heavy armor fights (most of them) multiple dps ships are needed to kill another setup group with logi support. This means it will be even easier to tank incoming damage for the defenders since the attackers will be all spread out.

Jumping capitals into a hostile fleet in wspace is a dicey proposition already with a very common tactic to attempt to bump them out of refit range, cap range, or range of the wh.
With this change all of that is unnecessary now because CCP has decided to do it for the defenders, unasked for I might add.


With most of the doctrines I fly I would prefer to be a bit further out on the other side. It certainly is not the end of the world. Yes it would change doctrines and tactics but that is not the same as being the end of wormholes. Instead of rolling with caps try nano - phoons or panthers or cloak-tricking a battleship or preparing advance and making some pings to cloak trick a warp to and then cloak trick a warp back down. I regularly roll 3 bil mass holes with only subcaps and it is not a big deal.

The current spawning at zero is a significant disadvantage to nano fleets, sniper fleets, Frig fleets and such. It would be more fun to see more of those than the current universal-t3-meta. As I said perhaps it needs to be inverted with smaller spawning further or a fixed distance for all or maybe even make spawn distance proportional to remaining wormhole mass. But the mere idea of the change doesn't sound like the end of the world.
#52 - 2014-08-03 16:26:17 UTC
Mealtime wrote:
D3m0n sam wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/nojWx.gif

All i have to say



Lets go and Shoot the Monuments again.
#53 - 2014-08-03 16:26:48 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good afternoon everyone.

We are indeed working on some changes to how ships spawn when they jump through wormholes. This is one part of a series of wormhole iterations we are working on and that we will be publishing a dev blog on soon. We will be looking for player feedback at that time.
The version of the code that is on SISI is absolutely not the final version, and is not running final numbers (the ranges we are working with internally are quite a bit closer than what is on this build of SISI).

We'll be posting a dev blog with the whole collection of proposed changes next week and we will be very interested in taking your feedback then. In the meantime I advise you all to not panic. Nobody is out to get you.

Hope you all have a great weekend.



Good, Well you can remove this " Change " from the dev/new build. I wonder what were in store for this time around guys.... Sov in WHs?

We are still masters of our fate. We are still captains of our souls

Triumvirate.
#54 - 2014-08-03 16:27:09 UTC
Sniper fleets work for defense, extremely well... So well that they usually just make the attackers go "screw this" and jump back, because they know they can't counter a bunch of ishtars at 80KM.
Adhocracy
#55 - 2014-08-03 16:27:31 UTC
In the interests of proving a point, I'm going to continue updating my reddit post with all the groups that immediately said no to this change: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ci5ue/dear_ccp_stop_fucking_with_wormholes_please/cjfq2pi

I suspect that your feedback will come down to "no, don't do this".

Could we perhaps work on having changes as fundamental as this announced before we discover them? It's becoming a running trend that wormholers find out these things as they're being implemented, rather than before they're being implemented, and it makes planning out workarounds much more difficult.
HYDRA RELOADED
#56 - 2014-08-03 16:28:35 UTC
Would be hilarious if the same things happened to everything that jumps to a cyno. Nullsec would burn when their precious supers suddenly lands over 50km away from the cyno.

❤️️💛💚💙💜

WE FORM V0LTA
#57 - 2014-08-03 16:29:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good afternoon everyone.
Nobody is out to get you.


If there is one harsh environnement for player in eve, its wh. Why would you do anything to make it harder ?

Why dont you work on stuff more important like finding a alternative on the ongoing nerf of nanoship... #stopKillingMyWayofPewPew
#58 - 2014-08-03 16:29:33 UTC
Aelias Zero wrote:
Makes it easier to camp a wormhole and nothing more. Also makes it so the smaller corps/fleets have less control in picking their fights.

-1 to the idea, all this is going to do is frustrate lots of people and get them to leave an already-empty wormhole space.


You might have more control and better opportunities as a small gang as you can more easily get outside of scram range and if you fall back through you have new disengagement options which you do not have now.
Adhocracy
#59 - 2014-08-03 16:30:59 UTC
Kynric wrote:
Instead of rolling with caps try nano - phoons or panthers or cloak-tricking a battleship or preparing advance and making some pings to cloak trick a warp to and then cloak trick a warp back down. I regularly roll 3 bil mass holes with only subcaps and it is not a big deal.


3 bil hole needs 5 consecutive round trips with an orca (give or take). That's 10-20 minutes longer than it takes at the minute with capitals. It's fine if you have the pilots to bring tons of battleships. If you don't, then you're going to have problems. Nano-phoons would require even more jumps (15 round trips). I'm fairly sure it would take at least 30 minutes to collapse using 3 pilots.
Pandemic Legion
#60 - 2014-08-03 16:31:10 UTC
(I checked, I didn't see it, so don't crucify me if I'm wrong on this, but...)

It would be nice if the Features and Ideas subforum was used for... you know, new features and ideas. You'd think that feedback before the work into putting these changes onto Sisi would make some sense.
36 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump