These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
106 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Mass-Based Spawn Distance After WH Jumps

First post First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-08-06 12:57:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone! This thread is for all of your feedback and discussion surrounding the changes to wormhole jump spawn distance that we proposed in our recently released dev blog.

I want to remind people that the best way to have your views heard is to state your case calmly, politely and with logical reasoning.

Whether you like this idea or don't like this idea, make sure to let us know exactly why you hold your opinion, with as much detail as possible.

:Edit: Update on August 16th:

Hey everyone. I want to thank you for all the reasoned feedback posted here, in your third party blogs, and passed along to the CSM.

We've made some changes to the plan and updated the dev blog with the new version (It may take a few minutes to apply).

The goal with this set of tweaks is to make the time required to return to the wormhole (or to get within refit range of your friends) for average jumps shorter, while keeping a significant element of risk.
To reach these goals, we're pulling the base spawn distance for large ships in significantly, to below 14km.
At the same time we'll be adding a new mechanic that modulates the randomness of your jump based on how close a wormhole is to collapse. For a fresh wormhole with none of its mass limit used, the deviation from the base distance will be a maximum of 2km. For a jump that collapses the wormhole, the maximum deviation (which can send you even closer to the wormhole or farther away) will be a maximum of 5km.

This brings the average jump distance down significantly while preventing complete safety and giving players a new element to consider in their strategic decision making.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Pandemic Legion
#2 - 2014-08-06 14:31:36 UTC
Oh this'll be fun

If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy

No Vacancies.
#3 - 2014-08-06 14:36:47 UTC
This is the worst change. See the other massive thread for reasons why from virtually all wormhole groups.

Recruitment: http://bit.ly/1r4G5Pv Website: http://www.no-vacancies.net/ Channel: No Vacancies

Scary Wormhole People
#4 - 2014-08-06 14:37:30 UTC
It should be the speed that you enter the wormhole at rather than mass

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

TDSIN Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' for more info, Join today!

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser

Adhocracy
#5 - 2014-08-06 14:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Traiori
20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community:

1) Rage rolling becomes much more annoying for large groups. This limits their ability to find content that they can take, whether it be site-runners to kill (which you *have* to rage-roll for, incidentally) or other large groups. The proposed change slows down chain-rolling, slowing down the speed at which content can be found. This also has the side effect of making farming safer, because the probability being rolled into whilst running sites comes down to how many holes can be opened whilst your caps are not in their POS. Less holes=less chance of dying to everyone else.

2) Rage rolling becomes essentially impossible for small groups. They also have to find content, and rolling the chain is often the only way to reliably find content of interest - whether that be PvP or PvE or anything else. The proposed changes stop you from being able to do this without fighting the larger groups... which you can't do because numbers are important in every case. Small groups can no longer rage-roll consistently, especially given that most larger groups will seed scouts into their chain.

3) Committing capitals to wormholes outside of home systems requires winning the fight or losing the cap... which in turn means that it won't be committed by anyone that hasn't already got the forces on-grid to win it. The proposed change ensures that capitals shoved into another wormhole can't get back into home system. Whereas we currently see Triage used to balance out fights against bigger entities, smaller entities can't afford to lose the triage carrier every time, so they'll just stop bringing them. Less fights is bad for everyone.

4) Using our capitals in nullsec (and arguably losec) means losing them. We're not stupid. The proposed change would strand our capitals 15-20km away from the hole. The fight would become a race against time: will they be able to form up capitals/supercapitals to kill our triage archon before we get it back into the hole? In most cases, the answer will be no. Power projection means that we can no longer commit capitals. It's bad enough at present, without increasing the scope of the problem. Once again, less fights is bad for everyone.

5) Sub-capital wormholes also suffer from the problem because orcas land far away too. The major difference between rolling C4 wormholes and C5 wormholes is that C4 wormholes use Orcas. If those orcas are guaranteed to be in danger, they're also guaranteed to die. We'll take orca kills any time of the day. So will other groups. This means that C4 groups also need to be fielding support fleets for their orca if they don't fancy losing them daily. Bad for small groups, which means they'll leave, which means we lose more groups and hence, lose content.


The error here is the belief that all groups can afford to field support groups. We can't. We aren't 10000 man coalitions, because wormholes can't support that kind of lifestyle. There is a maximum limit to how many people can fit into a wormhole, and unless we're now expecting all pilots to be on all of the time, that means that this change will make smaller groups increasingly unfeasible.

I originally made most of these points on a reddit post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2cro9k/where_are_the_devblogs/cjihkl9. Some inital discussion over it can also be found.


EDIT: A better solution would be to invert the numbers: have distance landed be proportional to a function of mass and speed, making it so that lighter and faster ships landing further away from the hole. This would allow us to use kiting HACs as well as brawling T3s.

EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be inversely proportional to mass (higher mass=close) and directly proportional to maximum speed (higher maximum speed = further away).
C C P Alliance
#6 - 2014-08-06 14:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Please keep your feedback constructive and in accordance with the forum rules.

While you can of course just disagree with the proposed changes, it is much more helpful if you list the reasons and explain why you disagree. The post above by Traiori is a good example of constructive feedback.

Thank you!

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer

Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#7 - 2014-08-06 14:43:12 UTC
There will be far fewer incoming connections from k-space, as more people will warp the wormhole, look at what space is on the other side, and choose not to jump through.

This will reduce the connectedness of w-space more generally.
#8 - 2014-08-06 14:43:40 UTC
This Is Not A Good Change
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#9 - 2014-08-06 14:43:43 UTC
12.9 km to 16.9 km is still too much.

maybe instead of having large mass ships appear far from the wormhole, SMALL mass ships should instead
Caldari State
#10 - 2014-08-06 14:45:03 UTC
how much beer do we need to buy you at fanfest to make you change your mind
Pandemic Legion
#11 - 2014-08-06 14:45:15 UTC
I think everything but the distance spawned from WH bit is p cool.

If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy

Grumpy Space Bastards
#12 - 2014-08-06 14:47:46 UTC
Personally, I think the 8.7km for an Orca feels about right.

It's 3.7km out of jump-back range at worst, and at best it's in range. On average, assuming 200m/s with MWD, I have to protect my Orca for about 7 seconds to get it back into jump range.

I should probably invest in a better cloak for it. =P
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-08-06 14:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nox Arnoux
A key element of overcoming someone else's home system advantage is to be able to reliably refit the capitals we commit (i.e. dreads next to carriers). When capitals have the potential of spawning >30 km from each other, that advantage is nullified. To add insult to injury, the home defenders can still decide where their capitals land, while the attackers are at the mercy of the RNG Gods.

You push this change through, and no one will commit capitals into someone else's system ever again. The odds are already stacked heavily in favour of home defenders, why make it even more lopsided?
Adhocracy
#14 - 2014-08-06 14:52:02 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Personally, I think the 8.7km for an Orca feels about right.

It's 3.7km out of jump-back range at worst, and at best it's in range. On average, assuming 200m/s with MWD, I have to protect my Orca for about 7 seconds to get it back into jump range.

I should probably invest in a better cloak for it. =P


It's 11.7km on average, 8.7km to jump range at worst (was the orca plated/mwd'd I wonder?).

Read the devblog more carefully. At 200m/s with MWD, that's 40 seconds. Once again, you'd have to warp off/on the hole to get fastest method (I think? I haven't done the exact maths on this one though, as my primary concern is dreads/carriers)
The Initiative.
#15 - 2014-08-06 14:52:29 UTC
I agree with almost every point made by Traiori, especially with fielding capitals into a hostile hole, ie it wont happen anymore.

Whose going to jump capitals into a hole where the enemy fleet is already prepared? Any other capitals will be outside of refit range of your Triage.

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog

Reckoning Star Alliance
#16 - 2014-08-06 14:52:52 UTC
It seems to me that the combination of more difficult rolling of holes, plus the more frequent wormhole spawns, plus the existence of the small mass limit, high mass total, regenerating holes will result in a wormhole chain that is deeper than what we find today.

Instead of groups fishing in their shallow static with larger capital backed fleets, the new environment will promote deep chain diving, especially with smaller ships. This should have the effect of creating more content by nature of random encounters and likely with smaller sized ship gangs.

While you can rageroll in this environment, it is now inherently more dangerous. As a smaller group that enjoys a more isolated lifestyle, many of these changes are troublesome. I do, however, potentially see the design goal here and think that in the end it would be a positive change for WH space in general promoting more people in space which is always a positive thing.
Adhocracy
#17 - 2014-08-06 14:52:56 UTC
Nox Arnoux wrote:
You push this change through, and no one will commit capitals into someone else's system ever again. The odds are already stacked heavily in favour of home defenders, why make it even more lopsided?


In the interests of providing the devs with information that they don't appear to have, how often do you commit multiple capitals into a hostile system during a fight?
Try Rerolling
#18 - 2014-08-06 14:54:11 UTC
I like this change and think these numbers are perfectly acceptable. This will make people much more hesitant to just try and roll away hostiles.
#19 - 2014-08-06 14:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Snakes-On-A-Plane
I'm not trying to flame anyone here, but I feel it is my duty to correct some erroneous perceptions, and level a howitzer at your spin control.

Quote:
which caused some consternation among parts of the wormhole community.

That is false. Consternation was caused among all parts of the wormhole community. C1 through C6.

If you are allowed to draw the conclusion that it was one segment, then you can also allow yourself to marginalize that segment. But your statement was simply false. Some small few did like the idea, but the vast majority of players, in all areas of J-space, did not.
Damaged Goods Inc.
#20 - 2014-08-06 14:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Flidais Asagiri
Post Edited by Flidais Asagiri, lacking any content.
106 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump