These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Actual versus perceived risk

Author
CivilWars
V0LTA
skill urself
#1 - 2014-09-08 17:45:25 UTC
Since everyone seems to want to see stats and graphs for how terrible w-space is now I have a question for those still living in w-space. How many have actually had something negative happen to you as a direct result of the Hyperion changes, and how many of you have just avoided all risk because you live your life in fear that something bad may happen to you? Since the patch I have only seen or heard of one cap getting caught while hole rolling*. I would expect with how terrible this patch is reported to be that there would be countless reports of caps getting caught with their pants down, but I have not seen them. So, have you, your corp, or your alliance lost a cap while using it to roll a hole? Have you been jumped by a frigate fleet that came through a frig hole you couldn't close? I am looking for first hand reports from those who have lost ships/isk due to the patch mechanics to further our research. Feel free to mail or PM me if you wish to report your findings anonymously.


*I was there, EVE is real.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#2 - 2014-09-08 18:04:15 UTC
CivilWars wrote:
Since everyone seems to want to see stats and graphs for how terrible w-space is now I have a question for those still living in w-space. How many have actually had something negative happen to you as a direct result of the Hyperion changes, and how many of you have just avoided all risk because you live your life in fear that something bad may happen to you? Since the patch I have only seen or heard of one cap getting caught while hole rolling*. I would expect with how terrible this patch is reported to be that there would be countless reports of caps getting caught with their pants down, but I have not seen them. So, have you, your corp, or your alliance lost a cap while using it to roll a hole? Have you been jumped by a frigate fleet that came through a frig hole you couldn't close? I am looking for first hand reports from those who have lost ships/isk due to the patch mechanics to further our research. Feel free to mail or PM me if you wish to report your findings anonymously.


*I was there, EVE is real.

It sounds like your reasoning is that if I were to see a T3 gang roaming with Logi, and I avoided that gang as a solo pilot, then there was no real risk because I didn't actually lose a ship.
Your emphasis on caps also shows your bias.

To answer the question you should be asking, and not the biased question that you are asking:
I have associates, who will remain anonymous, who have lost ships as a direct result of the uncloseable frig holes, so yes there is increased risk from those in the form of scouts opening other wormholes. This risk exists with every hole, of course, but unless you have the ability to park an alt on the frig hole for its 16hr lifetime this risk cannot be mitigated, unlike other wormholes.
As for losing Isk, the seemingly increased frequency of WH spawns (including frig holes), limits the ability of small groups to go out and run sites with a reasonable degree of safety, unless they have the ability to log on multiple alts solely to park on WH's. My ire is directed at frig holes in particular though, so I will say that since Hyperion I am much less likely to go out and solo sites because a frig hole represents more risk than I am willing to take given the current reward. So, I would estimate that I have easily lost several hundred million just from the near-constant spawning of frig holes when I have been online.

Does that fit the data that you wanted or does it not count since I have a different definition of acceptable risk?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#3 - 2014-09-08 18:06:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
I think the risk aspect is badly mis-understood.

The problem is that when the additional risk from the mechanic change(s) actually materialises it tends to put undue burden on the smaller entity something which wormhole space has traditionally largely (though not entirely) managed to avoid.

What some people don't seem to understand is that the vast vast majority of the time when your collapsing a wormhole there simply is no one there to capitalise on that extra vulnerability and in adding that extra potential vulnerability it has added increased tedium for something that only really materialises as a gameplay enabler in fringe cases.

There is some aspect of that perceived risk that you hinted at also especially with the hugely increased levels of connectivity that for some corps is impossible to fully get a handle on with the limits of the pilots, etc. they have available.

EDIT: I'm actually surprised though at what I'm hearing anecdotally - it seems to have a bigger perceived effect on some C3/4 corps that I know people in to talk to in that some have moved out entirely just due to the possibility of unmanageable risk before it has even materialised and others just log off when there is a link in the chain to someone bigger or better at PVP than them even without seeing any activity.
Seraph Essael
Anomalous Existence
Spatial Instability
#4 - 2014-09-08 18:07:11 UTC
I had an Interceptor, Sabre and Harpy fleet roll though a frigate hole the other day, about 15 of them, that opened into the hole I was in. They engaged the ratting Domis but didnt get a kill due to Sabres being **** poor and the Domis having MJD and smartbombs.
Buggered off after about half an hour. Was fun to watch actually. Big smile

As for rolling, I don't have caps so I can't comment on them, but I nearly got the two rollers killed on the way back to the hole. If it hadn't have been for the ECM burst Lol

Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."

Ahost Gceo
Violence is the Answer
Wormhole Society
#5 - 2014-09-08 18:07:44 UTC
This is a loaded request because too many people have already left to really gather data that actually scales to when the community really was alive in w-space and cap ganks were commonplace.

CCP ignore me please, I make too much sense.

AgentFiftySix
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-09-08 18:13:54 UTC
While observing the tears on this subforum I have come across two points that are continuously complained about and contradictory. On the one hand everyone is complaining that W-space is empty and getting emptier and they scan 2000000 wormholes (The degree of my exageration was carefully calculated from the number of tears I have observed on the subject) and never see anyone. On the other hand there is an equal amount of tears about how risky it is to do anything due to the increase in wormholes and that people are being continuously ganked. You can't really have it both ways, you can't complain that w-space is empty and then turn around and complain that there are players lurking behind every frig hole to gank you and your risk has increased 10,000 fold (again calculated based on number of tears observed).

Please pick non-contradictory lines of tears in future otherwise it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#7 - 2014-09-08 18:16:41 UTC
We stopped using orcas to close holes; for the majority of our endeavors. Because we perceived that the risk had changed. Now the question: is it real risk? It was real enough to change our behaviour.
Shogun Hogun
Doomheim
#8 - 2014-09-08 18:21:10 UTC
AgentFiftySix wrote:
While observing the tears on this subforum I have come across two points that are continuously complained about and contradictory. On the one hand everyone is complaining that W-space is empty and getting emptier and they scan 2000000 wormholes (The degree of my exageration was carefully calculated from the number of tears I have observed on the subject) and never see anyone. On the other hand there is an equal amount of tears about how risky it is to do anything due to the increase in wormholes and that people are being continuously ganked. You can't really have it both ways, you can't complain that w-space is empty and then turn around and complain that there are players lurking behind every frig hole to gank you and your risk has increased 10,000 fold (again calculated based on number of tears observed).

Please pick non-contradictory lines of tears in future otherwise it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.



Too many Gank corps
Not enough Bears or PvP corps

from the bears perspective, they are getting ganked all the time, and wormholes seem more dangerous

but there aren't enough bears to spread to all the gank corps, so to them it seems empty

to the perspective of pvp corps it seems empty cause no one will leave the pos shield to fight

It's not contradictory you just have to understand that different people have different perspectives
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#9 - 2014-09-08 18:22:30 UTC
AgentFiftySix wrote:
While observing the tears on this subforum I have come across two points that are continuously complained about and contradictory. On the one hand everyone is complaining that W-space is empty and getting emptier and they scan 2000000 wormholes (The degree of my exageration was carefully calculated from the number of tears I have observed on the subject) and never see anyone. On the other hand there is an equal amount of tears about how risky it is to do anything due to the increase in wormholes and that people are being continuously ganked. You can't really have it both ways, you can't complain that w-space is empty and then turn around and complain that there are players lurking behind every frig hole to gank you and your risk has increased 10,000 fold (again calculated based on number of tears observed).

Please pick non-contradictory lines of tears in future otherwise it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.


The subject is not as contradictory as you make it seem. Bears are mad because there is increased risk for them to farm. PvP players are pissed off because they have to scan more wormholes to find active players.

The points are not mutually exclusive. I can have mywhine and eat it too.
AgentFiftySix
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-09-08 18:32:14 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
AgentFiftySix wrote:
While observing the tears on this subforum I have come across two points that are continuously complained about and contradictory. On the one hand everyone is complaining that W-space is empty and getting emptier and they scan 2000000 wormholes (The degree of my exageration was carefully calculated from the number of tears I have observed on the subject) and never see anyone. On the other hand there is an equal amount of tears about how risky it is to do anything due to the increase in wormholes and that people are being continuously ganked. You can't really have it both ways, you can't complain that w-space is empty and then turn around and complain that there are players lurking behind every frig hole to gank you and your risk has increased 10,000 fold (again calculated based on number of tears observed).

Please pick non-contradictory lines of tears in future otherwise it seems like you are just complaining for the sake of complaining.


The subject is not as contradictory as you make it seem. Bears are mad because there is increased risk for them to farm. PvP players are pissed off because they have to scan more wormholes to find active players.

The points are not mutually exclusive. I can have mywhine and eat it too.


If pvp corps are leaving as stated and have to work harder to find bears then the bears should not be getting ganked as often and the risk should be decreased due to the amount of work needed to find a target as well as the decrease in people actively searching for targets.

Likely there is no real increase in risk as the OP is hinting at and that people are choosing not to leave their pos fields to do things because they perceive an increased risk. Also I find it likely that it's not that hard to find targets if you are willing to scan as there are an increase in connections but people are lazy and want 1-3 people to rage roll for targets for them while they play Day-Z until a target is found and are now whinging that they may need to contribute to content creation.

CivilWars
V0LTA
skill urself
#11 - 2014-09-08 18:46:16 UTC
I will address a few of the responses in no particular order.

1. It is not my bias in regards to caps. There is another topic where the reduction in cap kills/losses in w-space is pointed at as irrefutable evidence, so I am asking for more details on said evidence.

2. True, if you see a gang, but get away from said gang, then I will accept that as an eyewitness account of actual risk even if there will be no proof of said risk.

3. To me this is the most important. I recall a time not too long ago when any group that would POS up at the sight of actual risk would be targeted for eviction from w-space to appease Bob. If there are groups willing to either POS up, or even evacuate w-space, based on perceived risk then won't Bob be pleased anyway?

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#12 - 2014-09-08 18:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Durzel
Perceived risk is what keeps carebears out of lowsec. Way back when I used to run missions exclusively, and if you believed half of what you read in the more popular PVE channels you'd think you'd blow up as soon as you jumped into any lowsec system, when as most people know the reality is far removed.

The problem is - in the lowsec gate camp example - is that even if the statistical probability is low, you only have to roll a bad number on the die and your ship is (almost always) toast. If you stand to lose billions on the flip of a coin then the risk becomes insurmountable, regardless of the actual risk.

Therefore I don't think it is enough to look at the risk in pure numbers terms.
CivilWars
V0LTA
skill urself
#13 - 2014-09-08 21:02:02 UTC
Durzel wrote:
Perceived risk is what keeps carebears out of lowsec. Way back when I used to run missions exclusively, and if you believed half of what you read in the more popular PVE channels you'd think you'd blow up as soon as you jumped into any lowsec system, when as most people know the reality is far removed.

The problem is - in the lowsec gate camp example - is that even if the statistical probability is low, you only have to roll a bad number on the die and your ship is (almost always) toast. If you stand to lose billions on the flip of a coin then the risk becomes insurmountable, regardless of the actual risk.

Therefore I don't think it is enough to look at the risk in pure numbers terms.

And my counter to that is if someone is so scared of the boogeyman that they won't leave their POS now then they were so scared of the boogeyman that they would roll every connection they had a month ago. That means the bear you had no chance of catching last month because they closed every door and window you still have no chance of catching because they either POS up, log out, or move. So again I ask for the PVPers what has been lost?

I find it virtually impossible to believe that someone that is such a big scarebear that they are leaving w-space because they can't close all of their holes now would be running sites, huffing gas, or crushing rocks a month ago with open entrances/exits. Maybe I am wrong, but my guess is I am not.

Still searching for eyewitness accounts of the boogeyman though.

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#14 - 2014-09-08 21:28:00 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
CivilWars wrote:
Durzel wrote:
Perceived risk is what keeps carebears out of lowsec. Way back when I used to run missions exclusively, and if you believed half of what you read in the more popular PVE channels you'd think you'd blow up as soon as you jumped into any lowsec system, when as most people know the reality is far removed.

The problem is - in the lowsec gate camp example - is that even if the statistical probability is low, you only have to roll a bad number on the die and your ship is (almost always) toast. If you stand to lose billions on the flip of a coin then the risk becomes insurmountable, regardless of the actual risk.

Therefore I don't think it is enough to look at the risk in pure numbers terms.

And my counter to that is if someone is so scared of the boogeyman that they won't leave their POS now then they were so scared of the boogeyman that they would roll every connection they had a month ago. That means the bear you had no chance of catching last month because they closed every door and window you still have no chance of catching because they either POS up, log out, or move. So again I ask for the PVPers what has been lost?

I find it virtually impossible to believe that someone that is such a big scarebear that they are leaving w-space because they can't close all of their holes now would be running sites, huffing gas, or crushing rocks a month ago with open entrances/exits. Maybe I am wrong, but my guess is I am not.

Still searching for eyewitness accounts of the boogeyman though.

The difference between today and a month ago is that groups that aren't purely PvP were better able to manage the risk when they were doing sites by closing holes. Now those same groups can still role the holes, but (and this is where most people agree the problem tends to lie) they have the added burden of parking at least 1 alt per frig hole and that makes 1 more thing that adds to the risk for small groups. Parking an alt on a hole before farming escalations is probably not very hard, if you are farming those sites I think it is safe to say that you have the ability to monitor several frig holes without trouble, but if you're in a low class hole it is also safe to say that manpower is at a premium either because of size or TZ difference.
So, instead of trying to pinpoint what makes bears even more bear-y and putting your "I don't get to drop on as many bears" tears all over the place, take a look at wormholes as a whole. The risk/reward, combined with frig holes, and site spawn rates have all affected small groups negatively, which in turn affects everyone negatively. Reduce plankton populations and the entire ocean will feel the effects.
Are people leaving? Sure. Are people coming in too? Yup. However, the Hyperion changes (mainly the damned frig hole) are another straw on the back of the wormhole camel. Meaning that I can't point at one thing and say "There's the problem", rather it is a cumulative affect of multiple factors that make living in a wormhole unreasonably hard for many people, in their own opinions. Everyone has their own risk/reward mental scale, you consult it before dropping on someone, before jumping a hole, before even leaving your pos, and everyone has their own limit to how much work they are willing to put in to live in a wormhole. Thusly, the Hyperion changes pushed some people beyond that limit, and when they move out it affects the entire community even if they are "only" bears.

Edit: Imagine living in a low class wormhole with a small group, you log on and there might only be 3 people online, or there might be 10 or 15, and then imagine the risk of running sites in that wormhole with 1 or more frig holes. It becomes a combined effort, closing the holes takes longer if you even bother to close them with a frig hole(s), and the payout of a combat site might average 15-20mil if you're salvager is lucky. Gas sites are probably the least risky, they still have to be scanned down (unless a scout already BM'd it of course) and you are likely to be in a Venture that is hard to catch if you're competent, but even that is riskier with frig holes and a small number of pilots to call on as backup.
Hyperion made things tougher for the small groups without actually adding anything. To paraphrase the old adage about the carrot and stick, Hyperion is too much stick with too little carrot.
CivilWars
V0LTA
skill urself
#15 - 2014-09-08 21:39:27 UTC
I agree totally that if a group is in w-space ONLY to make isk by bearing it up then these changes probably tilt the risk/reward too far in the risk category when compared to other methods of making isk like missions, FW, incursions, or ratting. HOWEVER, what nobody seems to realize is the hunters were never going to kill those people anyway because before Hyperion they would scout 3 holes deep before rolling their hole before bearing it up in their home. Yes, there were, and still are, some dumb/brave/masochistic people that will try to bear with open holes, but guess what, they still exist, and still do stupid stuff.

My question still stands. With all of the increased holes is there any evidence of real increased risk? More fleets in your home/static(s) than before? Yes, I get that there is more perceived risk because if I went from 2 holes to 4 holes then my risk essentially doubled, but if all 4 holes, and their holes and their holes etc, are empty then is there any real increased risk?

Hidden Fremen liked your forum post:

Jack Miton liked your forum post:

Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#16 - 2014-09-08 22:20:08 UTC
Beg to differ. I've been a paranoid bear and the bear rolling through sites with 2 open holes. I think I've been caught more often when I think I'm safe because I'm not beating up my scan nor am I taking the same ship precautions.

On the flip side I rarely search too far for wh PvP because its a pain in the **** to find a fight, and let's face it I'm not patient. But in a c2 fights will come to you, which is win win.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#17 - 2014-09-08 22:47:32 UTC
CivilWars wrote:

My question still stands. With all of the increased holes is there any evidence of real increased risk? More fleets in your home/static(s) than before? Yes, I get that there is more perceived risk because if I went from 2 holes to 4 holes then my risk essentially doubled, but if all 4 holes, and their holes and their holes etc, are empty then is there any real increased risk?


Its a complicated subject - if you've got a 3 man corp with a few alts in a C1-4 and 7 or so wormholes each with 5+ wh connections thats a huge amount of potential risk to try and get to grips with and work out if all those possible connections and chains are actually empty or not.

I don't think the risk factor itself should really be an issue though the fact that when the risk factor does come into play with these changes it tends to largely plays into the hands of whoever has the most players, when before it was relatively balanced and could more often be decided by who made the smartest use of the terrain, is more of a disappointment.
Ruffio Sepico
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#18 - 2014-09-08 23:34:32 UTC
CivilWars wrote:
I agree totally that if a group is in w-space ONLY to make isk by bearing it up then these changes probably tilt the risk/reward too far in the risk category when compared to other methods of making isk like missions, FW, incursions, or ratting. HOWEVER, what nobody seems to realize is the hunters were never going to kill those people anyway because before Hyperion they would scout 3 holes deep before rolling their hole before bearing it up in their home. Yes, there were, and still are, some dumb/brave/masochistic people that will try to bear with open holes, but guess what, they still exist, and still do stupid stuff.

My question still stands. With all of the increased holes is there any evidence of real increased risk? More fleets in your home/static(s) than before? Yes, I get that there is more perceived risk because if I went from 2 holes to 4 holes then my risk essentially doubled, but if all 4 holes, and their holes and their holes etc, are empty then is there any real increased risk?


Maybe the ability to "safer" button up before do sites bring a more sense of safety to players. Even though its a false sense of security imho.

I been watching people sitting idle at tower doing nothing, they had multiple connections, but from scanning them I know nothing really of danger in any direction, but still they dont do anything. And im not talking about 2 guys sitting at a pos. But when you watching like 6-7 guys doing nothing for a few hours, you start wonder.

"There is nothing to fear than fear itself" right? But people are people, and if they feel there is no incentive big enough to do anything because they feel the risk is to high. Not much to do about that. As someone said, added risk without bigger carrots doesnt work well. You will never get players to do stuff when they feel the risk is to great vs possible rewards. That doesn't just apply for wspace but any part of eve though.

As for added risk, dunno, we caught an orca the other day rolling a c4 that was by chance we probably wouldnt before changes. We had people try bait us into roll a c5 (but you learn your lesson for most parts once falling for that :p)

If you run escelations you still get the chance of get caught in a site as before. Although before changes you could try slam the door fast enough with a few guys, which would be more dangerous now. Although deppending on your size and numbers.

Some days it feels like scan one chain after the other with no life what so ever out there. Other days again, to much to deal with. After the patch it tend to be more of the first, with more dead sticks and not much going on.





Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
#19 - 2014-09-09 00:03:52 UTC
CivilWars. I'm still very curious why you are caring so much about defending these changes when you already moved out prior due to the decline of WH space.

So to that I would ask a different question. I know it's not really the topic of this thread, but it seemed better than a call out in a new thread.

How did the WH changes make WH space better? I will even start by answering it myself, at least the more controversial changes.

I don't think they did. At best, these changes changed little. As such they were largely "change for change sake" which personally I think is a poor reason to implement a change.

1. WH spawn distance. Honestly I don't see how this changed much in terms of rolling. Anything from a BS to cap will likely land outside jump range. But the bottom line is unless it was the roll that collapses the WH you were generally at a similar risk. For example if I'm using an Orca, and due to bad scouting I jump thru the WH onto a gang, I'm dead either way. Pre patch I would jump back and get followed. Post patch I die on the other side. For fights I really don't know as I've never been a part of a Cap level fight on the WH. It does make a bunch of other comps hard if not impossible to use, such as an RR gang, as you land much further apart. That being said, this change does mix things up a bit so I think it was a more valid change than some of the others.

2. Small ship wormholes. I think these were just stupid. Maybe if there was some precedent for massive frig roams in WH space, but otherwise they generally seem to add more sigs to scan that are useless. Might as well make Ore sites sigs again to give me more useless stuff to scan.

3. Second WH static. Honestly I think this one may prove positive in the long run. While many C4 residents fled, in time hopefully others will re-settle. People who did not like C4's in the past may find them more to their liking.

4. Delayed k162. I also think this one was just useless. In fact I think it backfired. I have said as much in other threads. My experience is that more new k162's I've encountered were spawned a long time ago and not jumped through. Instead of rolling a WH and not warping to the new sig, you can warp a scout to the WH and keep an eye on it "just in case" without opening the other side. Do your stuff and then log out. Diligent site runners will still not get caught due to the changed mechanic if someone does jump thru into them. Change for changes sake.


To tie it in with your question, the problem then becomes perceived risk. Sure there have been lots of people leaving, or just not logging in due to the perceived risk. Are they correct to do so? Hard to say. The bigger issue is that the perceived GAINS of these changes simply aren't there either. So real or otherwise you have a larger perceived risk vs perceived gain, and the net effect is negative.
Seraph Essael
Anomalous Existence
Spatial Instability
#20 - 2014-09-09 01:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Seraph Essael
Two more corps found moving out of wormholes today. I won't name them for the sake of them, but one was a C4 corp and the other a C5 corp. The C5 corp also had somewhat of a decent kill / death ratio too, so they cannot be classed as bears. They took part in a fair amount of PvP.

Both were using the hisec of the hole I was in to move a proverbial shite load of ships out.

Also, the C4 corp was exploding some of their own ships via the self destruct.

Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person."

123Next page