These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

C5, C6 Mass discussion in regards to capitals.

First post
Author
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2016-03-10 18:59:08 UTC
With the coming of new capital modules (plates). Masses for C5 and C6 wormholes are going to have to be changed and altered to take this in to account.

At the summit I brought up the subject of maybe allowing more capitals though a wormhole. Which people felt was worth getting player feedback. Since the mass on these have to change anyway. This would be fairly simple to do.

So if people would like to discussion if its a good or bad idea on maybe allowing more than 3 caps through a wormhole.

There is obviously pro's and con's. But we'd be interested in getting feedback on these.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#2 - 2016-03-10 19:20:20 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
corbexx wrote:
With the coming of new capital modules (plates). Masses for C5 and C6 wormholes are going to have to be changed and altered to take this in to account.

At the summit I brought up the subject of maybe allowing more capitals though a wormhole. Which people felt was worth getting player feedback. Since the mass on these have to change anyway. This would be fairly simple to do.

So if people would like to discussion if its a good or bad idea on maybe allowing more than 3 caps through a wormhole.

There is obviously pro's and con's. But we'd be interested in getting feedback on these.


From a C4 point of view, I absolutely would not want Capitals to come in and out, no matter how they are fit.
From a C5 point of view, My experience is a bit rusty, but this would merely increase the destructive level one could bring in.
Is that a good thing? Or just increase the opportunity to encourage PVE in the static?
It probably would not be sufficient to affect PVP results, but might encourage slightly bigger fights?
Changing the limits, so two (specific) caps can do a hole roll and not get locked out, can be popular, but lower class holes, don't have such an easily predictable, ship/hole combination, so a little unfair.
Am I right a dread can pass both ways, but add another cap and it isn't making it back?

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

biz Antollare
The Dark Space Initiative
The Initiative.
#3 - 2016-03-10 20:13:59 UTC  |  Edited by: biz Antollare
I dont care how CCP works the numbers.... just make it so you can only still fit 3 caps through WH's. But dont forget how adding mass will allow a lot more smaller ships too.
Braxus Deninard
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#4 - 2016-03-10 20:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Braxus Deninard
I think the change would be mostly positive - for larger groups. There are some significant disadvantages though and those disadvantages are going to really hurt smaller groups rather than the big groups, so I'm not sure if this change is worth it. Still worth discussing the pros and cons though.

Sticking to 3 capitals through a wormhole is probably the best idea, simply because it allows smaller groups to still effectively fight with capitals without getting capital blobbed.

Advantages
- Fights would allow both sides to commit more capitals, so multiple carriers or multiple high angle gun dreads could actually become viable. At the moment from a high class perspective with the mass limits the way they are, there's going to be very few situations in which people are going to use high angle gun dreads in PvP, a similar thing could be achieved with a vindicator or 2 which has significantly less mass and isn't constricted to a siege cycle. I'm really still at a loss as to why anyone would use high angle dreads in w-space and this mass change would be a solution to that. Realistically though how many groups would actually experience the sort of situation where 2 large fleets with 4 caps each go against each other? Probably very few.

- More capitals could be seeded into the home of a target at any one time, speeding up the seeding and/or eviction process which, when citadels come out, is going to become significantly harder.

- Increase in battleships in w-space. Most people love flying battleship hulls but in larger groups it's often difficult because of mass restrictions. Higher mass on the hole would probably force most major groups to incorporate large numbers of faction battleships into the typical T3 meta. If anything the entire T3 meta might go away and entire battleship fleets could become a very realistic thing. The counterplay there would also be interesting if one side was able to drop 4 high angle gun dreads and begin to volley battleships, so more interesting setups and the subsequent counterplay to these setups is always fun. If you're connected to another group through anything that isn't a high class connection though the whole battleship fleet goes out the window.

- Many people seem to believe that static sites is the way forward for wormhole PvE, alluding that there's more risk and danger if you do this rather than locking yourself down in your home and farming. I don't agree with this in the slightest, especially when groups that support this are usually the first to crit and roll all holes in their static before farming, just like you do farming in your home, but if that was the direction CCP took with PvE, this is a great step to make it viable, allowing 2 caps into the static to actually farm static sites.

Disadvantages
- Increased time to rage roll. Instead of a dread and a battleship to roll a 3b hole, you might need 2 dreads and a battleship. This would make it harder for smaller rage rolling crews or smaller corps who want to frequently roll. Not a major thing though, just a slightly longer roll time.

- Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go.

- Prevalence of null groups using these high mass connections to get massive fleets through. For example, if you increased the mass on a H296 connection to 5B (theoretical number there), you would also have to increase the mass on a Z142 to 5b, otherwise you would jump your 5 caps out your H296 to seed a target and not all of them would get out to null, from which they would move into another wormhole. With the increased mass to 5b larger null fleets would be able to make it through and back chains. Having said that I don't think it's a big deal, 3b is more than enough as it is now for a large null fleet to make it through and it's not something that I've seen often.

So yeah, overall I think it's negative. It's definitely a buff to larger groups though, I see very few advantages in the change for smaller groups.
biz Antollare
The Dark Space Initiative
The Initiative.
#5 - 2016-03-10 20:29:59 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:


From a C4 point of view, I absolutely would not want Capitals to come in and out, no matter how they are fit.
From a C5 point of view, My experience is a bit rusty, but this would merely increase the destructive level one could bring in.
Is that a good thing? Or just increase the opportunity to encourage PVE in the static?
It probably would not be sufficient to affect PVP results, but might encourage slightly bigger fights?
Changing the limits, so two (specific) caps can do a hole roll and not get locked out, can be popular, but lower class holes, don't have such an easily predictable, ship/hole combination, so a little unfair.
Am I right a dread can pass both ways, but add another cap and it isn't making it back?




wow......

gotta love the feedback from people who have never flown caps.
Mimiko Severovski
Zero Fun Allowed
#6 - 2016-03-10 20:31:06 UTC
Instead of breaking the balance that is WH mass, tweak capital ship mass numbers instead, it would be less hastle and less people would complain.
Force auxiliarys also shouldnt have more mass than carriers do right now.




Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2016-03-10 22:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
I think it's an extremely bad idea to up the mass on high end WHs.
wspace is blobby as it is and adding mass just feeds into that.
Are there any actual numbers of how much mass the plates are going to add?

honestly, i'd be very much in favour of leaving hole mass as it is.
you can still bring one plated capital as the last one through since that doesnt affect anything and plating the other 2 should come with downsides.
i think if you can fit 1 non plated and 2 plated caps through as it is, there's no reason to up the mass.

If you mean upping the allowable single jump mass, that's a different story. if the mass of the caps with plates is higher than that, it should be raised accordingly.
!!!NOTE!!! MAKE SURE IT IS NOT RAISED TO A POINT WHERE SUPERS FIT.

There is no Bob.

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

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

Ariete
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-03-10 22:31:24 UTC
Total Mass should stay the same, so 3 Bill. The jumpable mass ie 1.35 bill mass doesn't really matter as long as the total mass stays the same and supers and titans can not use wormholes.

3 Bill Jump mass with a 3 Bill Total Mass.......

Higs Dreads for rolling?

Ok make it 1.5 Bill Jump mas.
Pancocco
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#9 - 2016-03-10 23:06:13 UTC
How about some sweetspot that gives people incentive to fly through shield capitals instead? It would shake up the meta and offer an alternative to the endless armor brawlfests. Very few corps fly with shield on a regular basis sadly :/

Extra Foramen vermis nulla salus

biz Antollare
The Dark Space Initiative
The Initiative.
#10 - 2016-03-11 00:02:51 UTC
Pancocco wrote:
How about some sweetspot that gives people incentive to fly through shield capitals instead? It would shake up the meta and offer an alternative to the endless armor brawlfests. Very few corps fly with shield on a regular basis sadly :/



how about staying on subject?
Axel Stenmark
Windrammers
#11 - 2016-03-11 00:03:11 UTC
I think it is necessary to increase the total mass and max jump mass to account for the use of citadels. The CCP test run with the current dreads against an XL citadel showed how a substantial force is required to even go through the first vulnerability cycle. It looks like the defenses in WH's will get a significant buff with citadels compared to current POS defenses. Added mass for high-class wormholes could offset that defensive buff by a small amount.

If you are paranoid about losing a citadel, you should live in low-class WH space and fit it for anti-subcaps and you will have a massive advantage over any attacker trying to evict you. High-class WH space should have more risk involved to coincide with the increase in rewards. The ability for the attacker to bring in more caps in a siege is important to make killing citadels even remotely possible.

New capitals will also have less EHP and less effective DPS against subcaps, so it should still be balanced for fleet fights if an extra cap or two can get through the hole. The added mass will allow for more battleships in high-class wormhole fights, but T3's will still reign supreme in low class, so it adds variety overall without allowing for excessive blobs against low-class dwellers. Added mass also helps balance out shield versus armor because the relative mass difference between individual capital ships is not as important, especially if plates are a viable fitting choice for capitals.
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2016-03-11 00:14:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Pancocco wrote:
How about some sweetspot that gives people incentive to fly through shield capitals instead? It would shake up the meta and offer an alternative to the endless armor brawlfests. Very few corps fly with shield on a regular basis sadly :/

Given actual everyone runs shield tanked capitals atm, even on their archons, how exactly would this shake up the meta?
I assume adding plates, and other things, is an attempt to change this.
Realistically the meta will change anyway given there's a large scale rebalance for caps coming but as it is now, armour caps are useful more or less only for PVE.

Axel Stenmark wrote:
I think it is necessary to increase the total mass and max jump mass....

yes, im sure that would be nice for the largest WH blob group...

There is no Bob.

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

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

Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2016-03-11 00:59:49 UTC
Do not want more caps to come through holes
Michael1995
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#14 - 2016-03-11 03:40:50 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
yes, im sure that would be nice for the largest WH blob group...


So Low-Class would benefit quite nicely from it then ey?!

Selling WH CFC Standings 10b/month for +10 with: Lazerhawks, Hard Knocks, Overwatch This, Many Vacancies, Golden Showers, Friendly Probes, Isogen Memed.

Join up for swag C3 Gila/Osprey ratting fleets daily! We also rent C2s out with CV effect!

Winthorp
#15 - 2016-03-11 09:14:26 UTC
I am fence sitting on this potential change for now as i feel we need more information to make an informed decision. There is an upcoming PVE change coming for escalations that i feel we need a devblog released before we say that WH's can now jump 4 or more caps. We don't even know how that will affect the landscape before we say either the bears or the blobbers should be able to field/drop more then 3 caps.

GET YOUR PVE ESCALATION DEVBLOG OUT FIRST CCP.

Changing mass limits that will allow more then the current 3 caps will in the end only benefit the larger groups tbh, and i am not even sure i am saying that will be a bad thing as they may enjoy being able to field 5-6 x 5-6 caps in battles and it may spice things up for them that can realistically fight them.

Smaller groups will be harmed by this mostly as with most changes but they will benefit from this also with the possibility of doctrine changes to field BS's in engagements, perhaps not against the group that can now drop 5-6 caps but they couldn't fight them anyway.

Thanks Corbexx for seeking feedback for these possible changes.
Eikin Skjald
Ars Venandi
#16 - 2016-03-11 10:57:53 UTC
Braxus Deninard wrote:
I think the change would be mostly positive - for larger groups. There are some significant disadvantages though and those disadvantages are going to really hurt smaller groups rather than the big groups, so I'm not sure if this change is worth it. Still worth discussing the pros and cons though.

Sticking to 3 capitals through a wormhole is probably the best idea, simply because it allows smaller groups to still effectively fight with capitals without getting capital blobbed.

Advantages
- Fights would allow both sides to commit more capitals, so multiple carriers or multiple high angle gun dreads could actually become viable. At the moment from a high class perspective with the mass limits the way they are, there's going to be very few situations in which people are going to use high angle gun dreads in PvP, a similar thing could be achieved with a vindicator or 2 which has significantly less mass and isn't constricted to a siege cycle. I'm really still at a loss as to why anyone would use high angle dreads in w-space and this mass change would be a solution to that. Realistically though how many groups would actually experience the sort of situation where 2 large fleets with 4 caps each go against each other? Probably very few.

- More capitals could be seeded into the home of a target at any one time, speeding up the seeding and/or eviction process which, when citadels come out, is going to become significantly harder.

- Increase in battleships in w-space. Most people love flying battleship hulls but in larger groups it's often difficult because of mass restrictions. Higher mass on the hole would probably force most major groups to incorporate large numbers of faction battleships into the typical T3 meta. If anything the entire T3 meta might go away and entire battleship fleets could become a very realistic thing. The counterplay there would also be interesting if one side was able to drop 4 high angle gun dreads and begin to volley battleships, so more interesting setups and the subsequent counterplay to these setups is always fun. If you're connected to another group through anything that isn't a high class connection though the whole battleship fleet goes out the window.

- Many people seem to believe that static sites is the way forward for wormhole PvE, alluding that there's more risk and danger if you do this rather than locking yourself down in your home and farming. I don't agree with this in the slightest, especially when groups that support this are usually the first to crit and roll all holes in their static before farming, just like you do farming in your home, but if that was the direction CCP took with PvE, this is a great step to make it viable, allowing 2 caps into the static to actually farm static sites.

Disadvantages
- Increased time to rage roll. Instead of a dread and a battleship to roll a 3b hole, you might need 2 dreads and a battleship. This would make it harder for smaller rage rolling crews or smaller corps who want to frequently roll. Not a major thing though, just a slightly longer roll time.

- Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go.

- Prevalence of null groups using these high mass connections to get massive fleets through. For example, if you increased the mass on a H296 connection to 5B (theoretical number there), you would also have to increase the mass on a Z142 to 5b, otherwise you would jump your 5 caps out your H296 to seed a target and not all of them would get out to null, from which they would move into another wormhole. With the increased mass to 5b larger null fleets would be able to make it through and back chains. Having said that I don't think it's a big deal, 3b is more than enough as it is now for a large null fleet to make it through and it's not something that I've seen often.

So yeah, overall I think it's negative. It's definitely a buff to larger groups though, I see very few advantages in the change for smaller groups.



I totally agree!

Good Statement
Bloemkoolsaus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2016-03-11 11:56:41 UTC
I think it would be nice to have a bit more mass so that battleships can be used more, however, I think the limit for caps should stay at 3 capitals, and for these reasons:

Braxus Deninard wrote:
There are some significant disadvantages though and those disadvantages are going to really hurt smaller groups rather than the big groups, so I'm not sure if this change is worth it. Still worth discussing the pros and cons though.

Braxus Deninard wrote:
Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go.
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#18 - 2016-03-11 12:06:50 UTC
Michael1995 wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
yes, im sure that would be nice for the largest WH blob group...

So Low-Class would benefit quite nicely from it then ey?!

I honestly don't know if this is meant to be funny or just ironically stupid.

There is no Bob.

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

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

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#19 - 2016-03-12 02:06:36 UTC
The main advantage smaller groups should always have over larger groups should be that the game design should grant them better mobility. To that end, going through WH should be choke points for larger groups more than it is for smaller groups.

Allowing more capitals to go through following mass changes to WH would be a direct benefit to the larger groups. The calculations should provide similar results as now, or, if anything, always making collapsing on odd numbers of max mases rather than making it easier to collapse through even number of largest ships going through. I.e. If the max mass is 300m for example, the total mass should be a multiple of 300m and not be a multiple of 600m.

Candidate for CSM XII

Winthorp
#20 - 2016-03-12 02:15:56 UTC
Borat Guereen wrote:
The main advantage smaller groups should always have over larger groups should be that the game design should grant them better mobility. To that end, going through WH should be choke points for larger groups more than it is for smaller groups.

Allowing more capitals to go through following mass changes to WH would be a direct benefit to the larger groups. The calculations should provide similar results as now, or, if anything, always making collapsing on odd numbers of max mases rather than making it easier to collapse through even number of largest ships going through. I.e. If the max mass is 300m for example, the total mass should be a multiple of 300m and not be a multiple of 600m.


Are you high son?
123Next pageLast page