These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post First post First post
Author
Edward Harris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2014-08-03 22:25:26 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Honestly i dont know what you people expect, there has been countless years worth of threads were we have whined about how predictible WH's are and how easy it is for your content of the moment to roll you away at their choosing perfectly safely unless you have a bubble up before they click warp.

Now CCP actually try to do something and you all carry on like it is going to ruin WH's.


A bad solution for a problem doesnt mean it's a good idea.
QT McWhiskers
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#222 - 2014-08-03 22:35:26 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.


You have awoken me from my slumber. With this change, you have single handedly killed c5 and c6 wormhole corps. We require the ability to effectively roll the static connection quickly and easily. You have just DESTROYED that ability. Spawning outside of jump range is a very VERY bad idea for several reasons. But all I have to do is provide one.

On December 16, 2013 a wormhole alliance by the name of Disavowed decided to get some payback and invaded our bros in lead farmers. Hard knocks took up the call and over the course of 3 hours we rolled 32 static wormhole until we found the correct hole. Leading to one of the largest fights wormhole space has EVER seen.

This would not have been possible if we were not able to roll our static connection, literally, every 5 minutes. This kind of change destroys all kinds of quick response in wormhole space.
Abney Stewart
Allspark Industries
Transformographagizers
#223 - 2014-08-03 22:38:40 UTC
Horrible Horrible Horrible idea.

This will only reward turtling. Being the aggressor will automatically put you at a large disadvantage.

NEW META - ALL T3 fleets with MWD....
Ion Udan
KING-ME
#224 - 2014-08-03 22:42:47 UTC
Hi CCP Fozzie,

Thank you for responding to this thread, I'd like to contribute some constructive feedback on the matter which helps in moulding how this change is deployed.

The first part that stands out is how this change was found. Please confirm if this is the standard way CCP deploy changes, ie: for all changes you just put them on SiSi and then work on them from there, even if players find them before you announce?

The second part that stands out is how this change will be perceived to impact "content" in W space, and by content i mean PvP. W space is so dynamic sometimes its possible in your current W space chain there will be no activity so you're required to roll your static to try and find someone. Whether this is another W space entity or a K space connection.

Now rolling high mass WH's means the use of capitals, capitals spawning 40 km's from the WH will certainly take some time to get back to the hole and jump through. Now doing this once off, adding maybe 5 to 10 minutes to rolling 1 hole isnt bad. When you multiple this by the amount of times people roll their static this is a large amount of time! The time spent rolling your static will add up and people dont have unlimited time to play EvE. EvE is reknown for having a high age level player base, with this comes more people working, more people with families and these are priorities for their time. If they know they're going to have to devote 20 to 30 minutes JUST for rolling holes its a negative to W space.

On the topic of how entities of differing sizes engage each other this change will have a perceived negative effect on the smaller group. To ensure the safety of your capitals, if you choose to use them for rolling, you will need to have a backup fleet on standby something not all W space entities can do. If you want to use smaller ships then its going to take a long time to roll, waiting out polarity. Or they just choose to leave it and log off. All this changes play time and how your player base interacts with them game.

I hope you find the above information useful. This is just my personal opinion but similar views appear to be within this thread.

Ion Udan o7

So, glorious QEX brother steals potatoes from hisec.

Meytal
Doomheim
#225 - 2014-08-03 22:48:21 UTC
Lynx Sawpaw wrote:
You told us about where k space wants to go with player made stargates, so why not show the same kind of love to those of us who live in j space?

Where do you think those gates are going? What part of space is devoid of gates and could "benefit" from them the most? Right.


Dear CCP, notice from this thread that, by and large, we DON'T want you making large changes to W-space. We barely want you making small changes; you got W-space "right" when you first rolled it out, and have left it alone for the most part without breaking it. What we want most of all is that you consider the changes in the rest of the game that you make and what effects they might have on W-space, altering them BEFORE you break something else in W-space. Again.

As far as changes we WOULD like to see in W-space, Corbexx has opened a discussion thread just for that. Most of them were intended to be small changes, but naturally when people get talking together, the ideas start flowing. That thread is discussed and vetted by the community, as is the list of things Corbexx would send you.

From day one, we've thrown your plans for W-space in the toilet and did our own thing. For a company that prides itself on player-driven content, you should be proud of that and encourage that. You shouldn't try to keep screwing us over like you do. Are the tears worth the lost subs? If the idea is to drive people back to Nullsec, realize that many people in W-space have already been to Nullsec, didn't like it, and wouldn't go back. They will leave the game instead.

Someone else posted a brilliantly insightful comment: Nullsec groups are unhappy with their space. Wormholers are very happy with their space. Work on fixing what makes your customers unhappy, not breaking what makes them happy.


Disclaimer: This change as is wouldn't affect me or my corp quite so much. We would just stop using Orcas to roll, and would instead only use battleships or 100MN cruisers. In fact, with the new cargo capacities of the specialty indy ships and DSTs, there isn't much use for an Orca in W-space anymore if this change goes through, except maybe for baiting.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2014-08-03 22:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
This is the new iteration of the Hated Cloaked K162 Gankhole idea that was stickied for months, then unstickied this weekend (8/2/2014).

Everybody HATED that idea.

If you want to create more content for wormholes, why don't you do what the ENTIRE FKING community has asked for.

Revert back the Discovery Scanner (no more instant show wormholes)
Revert back mining sites to anomalies.
Change Black Holes to something Viable.
Deal with C4 space and figure out if a dual static is viable for it.

Hell pick one thing from the W Space Little Things Thread. There are viable concepts that are agreed by the entire wormhole community there. The community, Your Customers, And the CSM that was voted by US in YOUR Election.

Why don't you start Listening To Them.

Yaay!!!!

Hatshepsut IV
Un.Reasonable
#227 - 2014-08-03 22:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hatshepsut IV
Tevath wrote:


Null secers are right. This already happens with gates, so.. what's the point of so much fuss? None.. just tears.



I'll break it down so even a bullhead can understand.

Wormholes are not gates. W-space is not Nullsec nor do we want it to be more like Nullsec. The mechanics surrounding kspace gate fights are a big draw/reason a lot of us live in w-space, so we don't have to deal with that crap.


Tldr.

Different from kspace is good, GTFO with your it works for us in null crap. It's not wanted and not constructive.

Public Channel | Un.Welcome

Winthorp
#228 - 2014-08-03 22:54:28 UTC
Edward Harris wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Honestly i dont know what you people expect, there has been countless years worth of threads were we have whined about how predictible WH's are and how easy it is for your content of the moment to roll you away at their choosing perfectly safely unless you have a bubble up before they click warp.

Now CCP actually try to do something and you all carry on like it is going to ruin WH's.


A bad solution for a problem doesnt mean it's a good idea.



I agree its the wrong solution but it is a step in the right direction.

You only have the people at fanfest WH round table to blame as all the recent changes to WH space have developed from that meeting. CCP confirmed this.
Setsune Rin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2014-08-03 23:03:05 UTC
helllll no

i'd like to actually use my capitals, this means they will just never leave the hole anymore

capitals spawning 7km off MAYBE, so that you can't immediatly close it but it's still not a suicide mission/pain in the ass to roll holes

and spawn subcaps 10-20 off so that faster ships have a chance



this change as it stands is just pants on head ********
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2014-08-03 23:07:59 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
The reaction to this change strikes me as the same sort of "who moved my cheese!" reaction industry got: largely people who don't like change protesting that their carefully optimized gameplay has been altered and they'll have to come up with new ways to do things.

That's understandable, but the group of people who like mindlessly following optimized routines are a very vocal minority and the game is just flatly better when things are shaken up a little. This seems like a good change that will cause a lot more interesting choices.

No points made why this change would be bether but dozens of reasons why it would be bad .
Should be tried on cyno's first to get a bether view of the effects. Maybe it would shake up the blue donut.

we in nullsec are always willing to try new game mechanics to shake things up - we are, after all, the adaptable bunch - so i'd be happy to have this implemented with cynos at the same time it is implemented in wormholes
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2014-08-03 23:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Quick clarification, when I say we don't have any specific plans to implement a change I'm not lying. Nothing on this scale would be in the cards for the summer expansion, we're not going to start changing things on this scale without giving them the discussion and feedback time they deserve


We'll hold you to that here to mate.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#232 - 2014-08-03 23:12:25 UTC
corbexx wrote:

ok so some stuff is up on reddit.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2ci5ue/dear_ccp_stop_fucking_with_wormholes_please/

I'll be totally honest I'm not sure what I can and can't say about stuff (i'm checking now on skype).

What would really help is for people to discuss it and put feed back in a calm and meaning full way. Raging and calling people names won't help me at all.

what i mean here is say why you like or dislike it, what effects you think it will have will it be good or bad, give reasons. stuff like "this is terrible RAWRRAWRRAWRRAWR" won't help and will just get in the way.


I see several issues.

it makes a boring job rolling holes more boring.
This favours bigger groups over smaller groups.
C2 to C4 orcas could be a issue.

It probably wont affect farmers at all cos if they connect to a big group they will just not bother to roll and log


What it does is make rolling a hole for (insert reason) more tedious and time consuming.
Wspace is time consuming as is. We deal with it since we did, after all, choose to live in this space with its different issues. However, that doesn't mean that we want to see arbitrary designs implemented that will reduce the QoL in wspace by requiring further time invested in basic logistics (read: rolling for egress/ingress, rolling for PvP, rolling after PvP, rolling because a fight won't happen, rolling for PvE, etc.). This increases the amount of time that this basic and required task will take by a healthy margin.

The option to "make pings with an inty". If this change goes through, the smart people remaining in wspace who need to roll a hole will likely do this. However, this requires yet another pilot (or more) in order to make it work. One for the ping (new), at least one for the scout (existing), at least one for webs for caps (new) because you don't want them slowboating into warp. From a rolling perspective, it will increase the number of pilots required by at least 2 but more than likely 2+ which places further demand on smaller corps. The guys who run in 30-40+ gangs won't really notice the addl one or two bodies because they'll have them. It has a larger negative impact on the smaller groups as they won't have enough pilots online all the time to realistically roll the hole without considering the ship a loss upfront.

Collapsing holes, or crit'ing holes during PvP is a valid tactical decision though when the numbers of pilots involved is heavily tilted one way or another.

And as for jumping caps into a fight on a bubbled hole. Good luck seeing those with anything approaching regularity. Same goes for jumping caps into someone's home hole for PvP. In addition to the (likely) home cap # advantage, CCP has just given the defenders all the advantage that matters as well in this regard....range (from reps/capxfer/extract). Suicide triage/dread is the only time an FC in their right mind would commit these resources at that point.

I'm right behind you

Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#233 - 2014-08-03 23:14:04 UTC
Oh good, another complete useless change to WHs by CCPs that does NOTHING but **** people off.
Ships in WHs need to spawn within jump range. It is a key difference between WHs and gates and is offset by the polarity timer.
Without it in make daily jobs like rolling WHs god awfully tedious.

Please, just STOP making changes to WHs. Just stop.

There is no Bob.

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

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

Thead Enco
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#234 - 2014-08-03 23:14:21 UTC
Fozzie,

Has it occurred to you that you will also be effectively killing the mercenary play style in which alliances accept contracts from smaller groups that live in w-space and their ability to roll statics to get to their clients home system in order to complete their contract.
kidkoma
Fwaming Dwagons
#235 - 2014-08-03 23:14:45 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.


Don't you have sov to fix? Pos code perhapse? Why are you fixing a part of the game that is actuly working nicely?
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#236 - 2014-08-03 23:16:41 UTC
Sounds like a good change, all around. Removing the safety mechanism of being able to immediately jump back through a wormhole increases the risk of traveling and allows for meaningful control of who comes in and out of a wormhole.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Sith1s Spectre
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#237 - 2014-08-03 23:18:23 UTC
I actually like the change.

No more risk adverse people easily rolling holes

Resident forum troll and fashion consultant

Stacey Starwolf
The Nyan Cat Pirates
#238 - 2014-08-03 23:29:08 UTC
I think it is a horrible idea for several reasons mentioned, but I might have found the thought behind it:

Nestor
The Nestor (as designed currently) has incredibly low mass - around half the mass of a normal Battleship. This should make it very popular in wormholes.


Wait ... no ... even if they would make the change it would still be a bad ship. Sorry guys, I give up.
Shevai Asan
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2014-08-03 23:31:00 UTC
Well, CCP never wanted any of us to live in WH space anyway; this is their way of saying "Get out or deal with it."

Don't worry everyone, I'm sure our opinions will be swiftly looked over and ignored as usual. CCP, working as intended...er...expected.
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2014-08-03 23:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Sith1s Spectre wrote:
I actually like the change.

No more risk adverse people easily rolling holes



yeah why wouldn't the people from big corps like it? Easier to catch hostile collapsing capitals and they have the numbers to roll in battleships. Win!