These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Second Static for C4s

First post
Author
#101 - 2014-08-07 07:37:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Vishtar
Instead of forcing a new static on the current residents why not give C4's something new to make people WANT to be in them? One of the great things about C4's is that they are quiet and you cant get Cap's in making them great for solo/small corps.

Improve the loot? Currently it's not that much better than C3 and takes longer to complete the sites making isk/hour ick.
Put Ice sites in C4's ?
Occasional chance of Instrumental Core or Vital Core Gas Sites to spawn in C4's ?

Make them so that they are a jump up from C3's and the people will come...
#102 - 2014-08-07 08:13:11 UTC
As a former c4 resident I really like this change. A lot of people who moved out of c4's will look upon them with new eyes now. With the combination of the other changes also coming (like nerf to ragerolling) this looks very good.
#103 - 2014-08-07 08:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: umnikar
Fonac wrote:

1. The logistical part of c4's are a nightmare, they're always behind atleast one WH (c3 or c4) whereas a c3 can connect directly to K-space. While it's awesome for someone doing PvP, to have access to more potential prey it's still as hard as before to do actual fueling, and/or buy a skillbook, update a clone... Or whatever you need in k-space.

2. The sites compared to the isk value, is simply not worth it. C3's offer anomalies that are far easier to run, than in c4's. Not only does the c4's do way more damage, they also neut alot more. But perhaps the biggest difference, is the range of the spawn's.
Most spawns, are at atleast 80-120 km away, which is a major difference compared to any class below, that is more in the range of ~30-60 km away.

A C3 site, average out at about 60-80 million isk, and a c4 at about 100-110.
You can run a c3 solo, you can not(without alot of bling) run a c4 solo. This means you need to team up with a buddy, and that right there halfs your income per site, and to some extend makes it worth less than just doing the c3 yourself.

/Fonac fanboy of CCP Fozzie!


I'm in C4 space for a long time.

1. I never had any issues with logistics. You get C2/C3 connections often enough.

2. Yeah the range Roll .. one would expect it even higher in C5, but it's the opposite.

The avarage payout is 90-100m per site with current ribbon prices.
Adding a C1 static will be a nightmare. I am considering going to c3 or c5 then...
#104 - 2014-08-07 08:32:34 UTC
Norwin Meinhorn wrote:
Please, add Capital Escalation Wave to the WH-systems of all classes! Let this waves be different in the number of ships or their class. But the situation when you can earn 1 billion per hour in WH C5, and not more than 200 million in C4, is ridiculous.


You are so right, except one little thing: you do not earn 1 billion per character per hour in a c5 - never.
A group of Marauders will be around 250mio, cap escalations can be, but often aren't, much about this.

A second static only hurts the inhabitants, when they don't have control over it and someone mean and evil is on the other side. Two coincidences that shouldn't happen too often.
In case you actually run into this situation, try one very simple but often succesful tactic: tell them to go away because you already got your pants full (some examples: "Sorry, our FC is on vacation!", "Sorry, they are all watching the world cup!", "Sorry, the rest is currently on ops!", "Sorry, wrong timezone!", "Sorry, We just got our asses kicked and have to farm up again!").

I am the Herald of all beings that are me.

#105 - 2014-08-07 08:32:44 UTC
Fonac wrote:
As a player who lived in a c4 wormhole for quite some time(and no longer does) I'm welcoming the changes of more statics with open arms. I do however believe, that the changes are not really concentrating on the "real" issue with c4's. And there are a few.


2. The sites compared to the isk value, is simply not worth it. C3's offer anomalies that are far easier to run, than in c4's. Not only does the c4's do way more damage, they also neut alot more. But perhaps the biggest difference, is the range of the spawn's.
Most spawns, are at atleast 80-120 km away, which is a major difference compared to any class below, that is more in the range of ~30-60 km away.




Bullcrap. My corp lived in a c4 and we had several marauder pilots that would make 250-350 mill an hour off running the sites.
#106 - 2014-08-07 08:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
Kp Amelia wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Farsuth Khand wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Farsuth Khand wrote:
Blah, no thanks.

More connections is not the issue. You can easily find Wh connections. The problem is finding people online and playing. That is your sticking point. If you reworked PvE content so people would log in to play on a nearly daily basis rather then just to shuffle reaction around or do a little PI. MAKE PVE FUN! that way you will get people logging in. That is how you get player interaction.

Also, remember one of the big draws for Wh living is the isolation. You can be a space hermit in WH space. No place in Eve has the frontier feel that living in a C4 gives you . Adding more statics and increasing the random WH spawn rate will reduce that unique feel. Is it really worth providing a small increase in ganks to potentially eliminate that unique Eve lifestyle?


If you want isolation go rent a dead end nullsec pocket.


At a much higher cost and you are not holding your own space. You are just a lacky.

I like Wh space. I don't really like the way null sec works. At least not a much as WH space.


Well then get on board and accept this change and start looking at what statics would better suit your corp, or look at another Wh class.



Why do you feel the need to add your 5cents every time someone comments with a different view to you? You are insulting people in this thread calling them bears and swinging you d... around like you are the best Pvper alive.

Your argument is actually very flawed. I am clearly a Pvper, my two co-owner of our C4 are Pvpers, one being on the top 10 in Eve list last month, but we use our C4 to fund our Pvp not to create it.

The only thing this patch will do is benefit large wormhole entities while completely screwing over small groups. CCP claim to be wanting to improve desire for C4s while all this patch will do is make them less desirable.

I will say the same thing I have been whining about in this whole thread, CCP if you want to increase risk you need to increase reward, or you are just going to have one more broken system added to your rapidly growing list.


I usually have a no NPC alt discussion policy but i will respond to you this once.

Firstly i didn't call anyone names, calling them a bear is what they are when there only rational for being against this change is we chose this "way of life in isolation" and "this hurts our ability to earn a good income and that's why we chose C4 space".

I think you will find i have more then 5c and i will throw it around however i feel, and i like how all the C4 residents are coming out and engaging on the WH forums for the first time after never having discussed C4 ideas in the countless threads that have discussed them. (The only person i see in here that has ever discussed C4's is from Sama Guild that i threatened to evict form C4 space and now they have left C4 space..... Roll)

CCP seemed to have listened to those threads even know a few people didn't want them to change, why i keep saying what i said before is because CCP didn't listen to all of that discussion on C4's then spend dev time, make dev blogs only to quash it all when the C4 bears get all mad about it.

So you need to accept this and the other changes are now happening and your ranting could be better spent engaging with CCP on how you could make these ideas work better for your groups (Does your NPC corp have groups?). Start talking about the statics you want to match up with the statics you currently have, hell start talking about the mass and time limitations these extra statics will have while they are in this phase of development.

Or well just cry some more about how bad this will be for your bear paradise and get ignored further.

You can thank me later for my wisdom.

EDIT: For instance can we have the second static only last for a period of 4-6 hours?
#107 - 2014-08-07 08:41:39 UTC
Icarus Able wrote:
Fonac wrote:
As a player who lived in a c4 wormhole for quite some time(and no longer does) I'm welcoming the changes of more statics with open arms. I do however believe, that the changes are not really concentrating on the "real" issue with c4's. And there are a few.


2. The sites compared to the isk value, is simply not worth it. C3's offer anomalies that are far easier to run, than in c4's. Not only does the c4's do way more damage, they also neut alot more. But perhaps the biggest difference, is the range of the spawn's.
Most spawns, are at atleast 80-120 km away, which is a major difference compared to any class below, that is more in the range of ~30-60 km away.




Bullcrap. My corp lived in a c4 and we had several marauder pilots that would make 250-350 mill an hour off running the sites.


You can do that with a group. But then you run out of sites very quickly and when I lived solo in a C4 even just running sites on my own I found that your always out of sites, they just dont spawn quickly enough for a steady income (time sitting doing nothing cuts into your income).
#108 - 2014-08-07 08:47:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone! This thread is for all of your feedback and discussion surrounding the introduction of a second static connection for Class 4 wormholes that we announced in our recently released dev blog.


I ♥ you.
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2014-08-07 09:14:22 UTC
[Posting on trade alt]

I am in charge of a small corp residing in a Class 4 wormhole system with a Class 2 static. Our reasons for choosing this type of class 4 system were:
  • A Class 4 system provides better income than Class 3 wormhole sites and they are harder to run. Harder to run is an important consideration for us because the home system sites provide a lot of our income and this discourages newer players to the corp from trying to solo them. We run sites as a group. I will be brutally honest and say that the isk per hour we see in our C4 is only marginally more than we were making day-tripping in C3s. The recent drop in the price of melted nanoribbons has hurt C1-4 inhabitants a lot more than it has C5-6 inhabitants.
  • Our corporation is not large enough to live in Class 5-6 space, and we do not have enough cap pilots. A class 4 system makes it harder work for people to evict us - a concern when we all have real lives and will go through peaks and troughs in activity
  • Our Class 2 static provides a potential route into long C2 chains and relatively frequent access to highsec. We can roam in k-space, and we can can hunt for PvP targets in j-space. We are active PvPers; 6 out of 7 days will be spent looking for PvP targets.
  • Our Class 2 static provides a place for newer members to build up their wallet in a low-cost Battlecruiser whenever they wish as the sites are easily soloable. And if they happen to get attacked... well... that would be terrible :)

The proposed changes concern me, although there are some up sides as well. My worries are:
  • We're already not making that much isk for quite significant outlay and risk.
  • Giving us an extra hole to roll will give us more risk
  • The new emergence-from-wormhole distance change will expose us to more risk when rolling those holes
  • K162s spawning when jumped through will expose us to a great deal more risk
  • Our new static type is not known. If we end up with a static C5 or static C6 connection, we will be forced to move. If we end up with a static C1 connection, we will be forced to move. We will not have a static C2 connection, as we already have one. The only situations in which we will not have to move are if we end up with a static C4 or C3 connection, and C4s are probably borderline.
    • We already have to batten down the hatches to avoid complete destruction when a C5/C6 chain links into us and a torrent of T3s come pouring through whenever they see we have anything on field. C5/6 residents are generally on the ball when it comes to ambushing people rolling a connection, and we need to roll the connection because we don't know if it's active or not. Regardless of whether we are doing PvE or PvP, a potentially open C5/6 link behind us could be deadly. Someone passing through could also have already activated it, and we could already have the inhabitants in our system
    • If it was a static C1 link, rolling it will take an age of mankind. This would simply take too much time to roll for it to be worth us staying in the system any more. We used to live in a C2/C1/HS, so I know the pain from experience.
    • If it was static C4 link, some of the above caveats about C5/6 links are still in place, as the C4 could still link to class C5/6 space.

  • The increased losses from hole rolling would put significantly more strain on our finances



The upsides is another static to hunt for PvP through! We currently have our static C2 which provides us with many of our targets and that we can (currently) roll fairly easily. Another static would give us the opportunity to parallelize scanning and hopefully find targets more frequently.

With the current suite of changes I am expecting to move if we end up with a C1,5,6 static, stay if we end up with a C3 static and see how things pan out of we have a C4 static. Moving would be quite painful as we have a carrier we have built in our hole so that we can up-engage when we need to against the larger wormhole groups; we expected to abandon it at some point, but didn't expect that we may be effectively forced to by game design changes.
#110 - 2014-08-07 10:49:59 UTC
I think this is a good change - have you considered giving the really high end WH's more statics, since they have the manpower to run through them all or watch them, whatever.....

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2014-08-07 10:56:32 UTC
Fonac wrote:

A C3 site, average out at about 60-80 million isk, and a c4 at about 100-110.
You can run a c3 solo, you can not(without alot of bling) run a c4 solo. This means you need to team up with a buddy, and that right there halfs your income per site, and to some extend makes it worth less than just doing the c3 yourself.



That is a threshold problem on any PVE content. When you scale the difficulty and income.. suddenly you reach the point where you cannot run solo, then the real income suddenly HALVES, That makes that exact point of the scale worthless. On other hand if ccp just double the income at that specific point.. then someoen will ultra bling his ship and make a stupid amount of money

Why incursions were more successful? Because the system scales with a lowe and upper limit.

Solution. Make the site rewards not static, make them scale depending on the number of characters that were involved in shoting the things since its spawn up to completion (a minimum amount need to be calcuated to avoid just tricking the system with several alts). At the completion then a last reward is granted.. scaled based on this calculation.

That can solve compeltely the issue you point.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Amarr Empire
#112 - 2014-08-07 11:05:43 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Fonac wrote:

A C3 site, average out at about 60-80 million isk, and a c4 at about 100-110.
You can run a c3 solo, you can not(without alot of bling) run a c4 solo. This means you need to team up with a buddy, and that right there halfs your income per site, and to some extend makes it worth less than just doing the c3 yourself.



That is a threshold problem on any PVE content. When you scale the difficulty and income.. suddenly you reach the point where you cannot run solo, then the real income suddenly HALVES, That makes that exact point of the scale worthless. On other hand if ccp just double the income at that specific point.. then someoen will ultra bling his ship and make a stupid amount of money

Why incursions were more successful? Because the system scales with a lowe and upper limit.

Solution. Make the site rewards not static, make them scale depending on the number of characters that were involved in shoting the things since its spawn up to completion (a minimum amount need to be calcuated to avoid just tricking the system with several alts). At the completion then a last reward is granted.. scaled based on this calculation.

That can solve compeltely the issue you point.



+1
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2014-08-07 11:44:35 UTC
This will cause a lot of corps to want to change their home systems based on what that new second static is, but I think this is a good thing. C4s are one of the lesser populated classes of wormhole because they require similar logistics feats to a C5 or higher for bringing materials in and plunder out, but the rewards have been lower because no capital escalations to bonus the sites up. The extra connections can make these more isolated wormholes more easily transitioned into by people used to 1 jump access to highsec, and a second static hopefully will be something more collapsible than the primary exits tend to be, for ease of rolling to find more content. It may cause a shakeup, but the end result should be positive for most current and future residents.
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-08-07 11:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Valenthe de Celine
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Fonac wrote:

A C3 site, average out at about 60-80 million isk, and a c4 at about 100-110.
You can run a c3 solo, you can not(without alot of bling) run a c4 solo. This means you need to team up with a buddy, and that right there halfs your income per site, and to some extend makes it worth less than just doing the c3 yourself.



That is a threshold problem on any PVE content. When you scale the difficulty and income.. suddenly you reach the point where you cannot run solo, then the real income suddenly HALVES, That makes that exact point of the scale worthless. On other hand if ccp just double the income at that specific point.. then someone will ultra bling his ship and make a stupid amount of money

Why incursions were more successful? Because the system scales with a lower and upper limit.

Solution. Make the site rewards not static, make them scale depending on the number of characters that were involved in shooting the things since its spawn up to completion (a minimum amount need to be calculated to avoid just tricking the system with several alts). At the completion then a last reward is granted.. scaled based on this calculation.

That can solve completely the issue you point.

Oh, yes, please. Make this consistent with all classes of wormhole, too. Then those C1 sites become workable by a crowd of lesser skilled characters for reasonable income. C3 sites run by 5 man teams start to mean something than a time waster while waiting for sites in your C4/5/6 to respawn. Granted, Capital Escalations are already doing this, so not sure if they should also share in these bonus spawns, but maybe do something similar for lower class wormholes? Like jumping in a battleship makes a few more cruisers or even a battleship spawn on the other side? Need to balance the DPS of these triggered spawns so folks can avoid getting alpha'd, but that shouldn't be too hard to adjust.
C C P Alliance
#115 - 2014-08-07 11:49:28 UTC
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.

We're aware that the PVE reward progression isn't ideal across the different wormhole classes, and this is something on our radar. Your CSM members are helping us do a bit of mapping and plan making at the moment on that issue.

We're aware that this change will be less welcomed by those who live in C4s with the intention of isolating themselves, but overall we beleive that this change will be positive for Wormholes as a whole. You may find that C4s with C4/C1 statics and other similar configurations may still meet your needs well.

We will not be publishing the list of new statics, but players will be able to investigate them on SISI once it is updated with this change. The second statics are not configured as predictably as they are in C2s, but there are still some patterns that can be discovered.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#116 - 2014-08-07 11:52:01 UTC
This might be the end of C4 PvE. Smaller groups will disapear or go down to c3 and bigger ones doing c5+ anayway.

It's already not easy to do the sites cause of the range. And the likewise fitted PvE ships are nice targets to gank while being on a WH highway...
For a C4/C4 it means to close 3 statics + the k-162s before able to run sites - or having enough scouts alts hanging around.

Our big alliances will have a great time kick em all out and that's it then(if they are not gone before).
Cry for moar content afterwards.
That's ok though. I'm not afraid of loosing ships - as long as I'm able to earn the isk to replace em.

Why not giving C5/6 a second static since those are the ones in the need of content while whining at the same time loosing thier WH open/close(target select) button?
If they need to roll 12 times an evenening(as read somewhere above) to get the desired content, they might be happy with 12 k-162 or wanderings a day?

And btw. fix the spawn ranges accordingly. If its 120km in c4 make it more in higher class holes.
IMHO the real Bear living in C5+, being able to do full escalations in 5 minutes while having ONE safley controlled static.

Well, all that comin changes simply forces smaller groups to form/join bigger ones... *sigh*
#117 - 2014-08-07 11:59:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We will not be publishing the list of new statics, but players will be able to investigate them on SISI once it is updated with this change. The second statics are not configured as predictably as they are in C2s, but there are still some patterns that can be discovered.


Thanks for answering this. Don't let the bears get you down Fozzie great work.
Infinite Spiral Drillings
#118 - 2014-08-07 12:09:40 UTC
I come to this discussion thred form this ccp news link : http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/into-the-known-unknowns/

CCP state that, C2 is healthy, according to their Graphs, Death > travel > npc kills.
CCP state that, C4 is unhealthy, according to their Graphs, Total event number failing, wormhole jump is negative, npc kills is even rare.

However, this is a fake data science.

Total nubmer of C4 w-spaces, is less than the total of C2 w-space.

Also, the player group in C4, are different from the players in C2.

And the type of graphs of the "Data" is wrong.

You claim that player knows about the wormhole map and the machanism, and then you propose to help the player.

You now listen to me. We all know that the cancer of wormhole are the C6. A few guys own all the wealth of the whole game.

They don't even need to pay for your game.

This is what you means for unhealthy. Fix it.

This reply is supposed to be deleted soon. Good luck to myself.
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2014-08-07 12:21:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.

We're aware that the PVE reward progression isn't ideal across the different wormhole classes, and this is something on our radar. Your CSM members are helping us do a bit of mapping and plan making at the moment on that issue.

We're aware that this change will be less welcomed by those who live in C4s with the intention of isolating themselves, but overall we beleive that this change will be positive for Wormholes as a whole. You may find that C4s with C4/C1 statics and other similar configurations may still meet your needs well.

We will not be publishing the list of new statics, but players will be able to investigate them on SISI once it is updated with this change. The second statics are not configured as predictably as they are in C2s, but there are still some patterns that can be discovered.


The phrasing of this does not suggest that there is very much room for feedback to result in an alteration to the change you are planning to make.

With CCPs null sec sov changes industry has been updated first as (as I understand it) this was considered a prerequisite to make Nullsec more able to be self sufficient. This seems like a reasonable way of doing things.

If you are aware that PvE reward progression is 'not ideal' across the classes, it would seem to be sensible to fix that prior to making Class 4 wormholes significantly more dangerous to live in. Could this change be delayed to match the point at which PvE reward changes are rolled out?
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2014-08-07 12:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: calexxa
OK, so C4 does not have such profit as C5 so it should be for smaller groups (or very small). We have C4 static and almost 90% of POS I find is owned by corporations with 10-20 members (alts included).
Unless you have very expensive ship (marauder, ..), you can not solo C4. Now there will be one more WH to watch out, probe down a scout.
Why should someone risk such expensive ship when there will be double chance that he will be caught and killed.

You think this will cause more people in C4s ? Well I think opposite will happen .. there will be much higher risk with still not that high income .. so why should someone stay there? Unless its pvp station or industry ..
Forum Jump