These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

If the following changes were made to WH Mass Mechanics, would WH's be ruined for you?

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1 - 2012-10-19 19:14:14 UTC

I personally feel WH Mass Mechanics are easy to manipulate, and, for the most part, make WH's too safe...

As such, below is how I'd like WH Mechanics to change. My question is, would this make WH life too hard, or would this break WH game play?? Please state why it would!!!



Suggested Changes:

1.) Actually closing the WH should be awkward. Suggested change: If you send a ship into a WH such that it will exceed the mass limit and closes the WH, that because the WH closes, there is a 50/50 chance that your ship will travel through the WH... In short, when a ship closes a WH, it's a coin toss on which side it ends up.

2.) This leaves a big problem. WH residents need to able to spawn new WH's so they can find more sites to run. As such, the static WH spawning mechanic should be changed. Anytime your static hits a critical state, a new static should spawn without you actually needing to close the original WH. This way, you can gain access to other systems, but in doing so, you leave the old door to your home open.

3.) Leaving the door open is a very good thing.... although it needs to be more than just barely open... As such, the WH Mass limit notifications should be altered: Stage 1: 100-55%, Stage 2: 75-25%, Critical 45-0%. I realize there is overlap in the ranges, and that's on purpose. You will hit Stage 2 somewhere between 75-55%. You will hit the Critical stage somewhere between 25-45%, randomly determined in a fashion that makes it unpredictable to the user.

4.) WH attributes themselves are still too predictable.... as such, the mass remainig should start randomly between 75-100% of the max limit, and all WH's should be given a significant regeneration rate. Ideally, when the WH is in Stage 1, the regen rate should be low, medium when in Stage 2, and when the WH is in a Critical Stage the regen rate should be fairly high (perhaps on the order of regening the Max allowable jump limit every couple of hours or so). To counter this, the "lifetime" of a WH should deplete in a variable fashion... If the WH is in Stage 1, it's lifetime should tick away like normal, but when it reaches Stage 2, it's lifetime should be reduced, and if in a Critical stage, it's lifetime should be significantly reduced (quartered).

The overall goal of these changes is to significantly reduce WH manipulations used make WH's safe, while still allowing WH manipulations for exploring and expanding WH opportunities... Are they fair?
Meytal
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-10-19 19:54:59 UTC
I'm not sure the 50/50 thing would work well. Instead of that, what if the max allowable mass per jump fluctuated based on the total mass. So, instead of a Y683 having a 2 bil total mass and 300k max allowable mass for its entire lifetime, suppose that at half mass, it was approximately 150k max, and at crit it was about 30k.

Drawbacks would include losing the ability to trap some ships by cloaking an Orca or Widow on the hole and jumping it through at the last moment to collapse it on the target fleet. A couple of other trap tricks wouldn't work anymore either.

It would also limit roaming C5 farming fleets, since they couldn't jump all of their capitals into the holes for cap escalation, nor could they easily crit their holes for protection. But then again, I see both of those as positives.

It would force new gameplay. Roaming fleets would need to jump their caps in first instead of saving one for last, or else they might not fit. This could force smaller group encounters in some cases, though it would make the already near-invulnerable C5/C6 fortress systems even more so.

Finally, chain collapsing statics would be more annoying, which could also be seen as a positive: less manipulation of wormhole mechanics.


If, instead of a specific wormhole static type (ie: Y683) spawning every time the old static dies, perhaps a few different types of wormholes could be added to the list, and one of those is randomly chose each time. So, if you are a C4/C3, you would still get a C3 static, but it could vary widely on mass and time whenever a new static spawns, instead of a guaranteed C247 every time.


I do like the greater random range of mass mechanics, and the variable life timers. The only thing I'm not sure about is having another static spawn before the old one closes.

But regardless of specifics, more variety and randomness, and less ability for players to manipulate wormhole mechanics at will is a good thing.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-10-19 20:18:56 UTC
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.

Leaving the door open for example in your post sounds cool. But since that open door is critical, a potentially invading fleet would just not bother as they could get as easily stuck as the ones who had been trying to collapse it.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#4 - 2012-10-19 20:31:07 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.

Leaving the door open for example in your post sounds cool. But since that open door is critical, a potentially invading fleet would just not bother as they could get as easily stuck as the ones who had been trying to collapse it.



It becomes easier to spawn new holes....
It becomes harder or riskier to close old holes...

Please explain what would be more annoying and tedious with these changes?

Arazel Chainfire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-10-19 20:40:06 UTC
How about no.

Precisely what is wrong with how WH's work right now? Nothing. Yes, its a well understood mechanic, but it is better to have a well understood mechanic that people can work with than a poorly thought out mechanic that does nothing other then make life harder for people trying to work in WH space.

Oh, and no, this mechanic will not make PvP happen more often.

-Arazel
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-10-19 20:40:19 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.

Leaving the door open for example in your post sounds cool. But since that open door is critical, a potentially invading fleet would just not bother as they could get as easily stuck as the ones who had been trying to collapse it.



It becomes easier to spawn new holes....
It becomes harder or riskier to close old holes...

Please explain what would be more annoying and tedious with these changes?




No it doesn't It makes it different to spawn new holes (since you are making things less stable due to your #1 suggestion). But it doesn't make it any easier than it is currently by just collapsing completely.

Since the old WH doesn't close in your plan, in theory that would make PVP opportunities more interesting. but in reality, since that old WH left behind is critical mass and due to your other ideas being part of that, nobody in their right mind would risk jumping their fleet through it.

So great. Let's say by your arguments that I collapse 5 times trying to find a decent static to farm. Now I'm left with 5 extra wormholes that didn't close, but are all at critical mass. So nobody is going to want to use them and they will just stick around, being extra sigs till they expire. I consider that more annoying with no real benefit.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#7 - 2012-10-19 21:23:46 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.

Leaving the door open for example in your post sounds cool. But since that open door is critical, a potentially invading fleet would just not bother as they could get as easily stuck as the ones who had been trying to collapse it.



It becomes easier to spawn new holes....
It becomes harder or riskier to close old holes...

Please explain what would be more annoying and tedious with these changes?




No it doesn't It makes it different to spawn new holes (since you are making things less stable due to your #1 suggestion). But it doesn't make it any easier than it is currently by just collapsing completely.

Since the old WH doesn't close in your plan, in theory that would make PVP opportunities more interesting. but in reality, since that old WH left behind is critical mass and due to your other ideas being part of that, nobody in their right mind would risk jumping their fleet through it.

So great. Let's say by your arguments that I collapse 5 times trying to find a decent static to farm. Now I'm left with 5 extra wormholes that didn't close, but are all at critical mass. So nobody is going to want to use them and they will just stick around, being extra sigs till they expire. I consider that more annoying with no real benefit.


If WH's have a sizeable mass regeneration coupled with critical no longer meaning less than 5%, but somewhere between 0-45% of maximum allowable mass, people WILL take their fleets into a critically disrupted whole.... I will...

With my suggestions, a Critical WH to a C5 had between 750-1350 m kg's remaining when it turned critical. Additionally, it regens about 100m kg's / hour... A 10 man gang of Logi's, HACs, T3's, & BC's easily have less than 300m kg's of mass.... and I'll definitely bring that through for a good fight... I don't know why you think people wouldn't... Hell, 100m Kg's is a 50man hornet gang.... Why wouldn't I risk that!!!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#8 - 2012-10-19 21:30:46 UTC
Meytal wrote:
I'm not sure the 50/50 thing would work well. Instead of that, what if the max allowable mass per jump fluctuated based on the total mass. So, instead of a Y683 having a 2 bil total mass and 300k max allowable mass for its entire lifetime, suppose that at half mass, it was approximately 150k max, and at crit it was about 30k.

Drawbacks would include losing the ability to trap some ships by cloaking an Orca or Widow on the hole and jumping it through at the last moment to collapse it on the target fleet. A couple of other trap tricks wouldn't work anymore either.

It would also limit roaming C5 farming fleets, since they couldn't jump all of their capitals into the holes for cap escalation, nor could they easily crit their holes for protection. But then again, I see both of those as positives.

It would force new gameplay. Roaming fleets would need to jump their caps in first instead of saving one for last, or else they might not fit. This could force smaller group encounters in some cases, though it would make the already near-invulnerable C5/C6 fortress systems even more so.

Finally, chain collapsing statics would be more annoying, which could also be seen as a positive: less manipulation of wormhole mechanics.


If, instead of a specific wormhole static type (ie: Y683) spawning every time the old static dies, perhaps a few different types of wormholes could be added to the list, and one of those is randomly chose each time. So, if you are a C4/C3, you would still get a C3 static, but it could vary widely on mass and time whenever a new static spawns, instead of a guaranteed C247 every time.


I do like the greater random range of mass mechanics, and the variable life timers. The only thing I'm not sure about is having another static spawn before the old one closes.

But regardless of specifics, more variety and randomness, and less ability for players to manipulate wormhole mechanics at will is a good thing.


My original reply got eaten... doh...

I like the idea of more general statics rather than specific statics... although I recognize that will make it even more difficult to invade a fortress C5/C6, as the pool of potential new WH's spawns increases...

I've been really debating your diminishing Max Allowable Mass based on stage... and I think I like it, as long as it reduces appropriately to make closing a WH un-pragmatic. It will need tweaking, I'm sure. I'll admit I'll miss the close the WH to split/trap your opponents tactics, but I think it will bring more good than bad...

The whole, have a new static spawn before the old one closes is really to make WH spawning a double edged sword... You open up new territories for plundering, but thereby subject yourself to manageable threats from the old WH's.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-10-19 21:47:54 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.

Leaving the door open for example in your post sounds cool. But since that open door is critical, a potentially invading fleet would just not bother as they could get as easily stuck as the ones who had been trying to collapse it.



It becomes easier to spawn new holes....
It becomes harder or riskier to close old holes...

Please explain what would be more annoying and tedious with these changes?




No it doesn't It makes it different to spawn new holes (since you are making things less stable due to your #1 suggestion). But it doesn't make it any easier than it is currently by just collapsing completely.

Since the old WH doesn't close in your plan, in theory that would make PVP opportunities more interesting. but in reality, since that old WH left behind is critical mass and due to your other ideas being part of that, nobody in their right mind would risk jumping their fleet through it.

So great. Let's say by your arguments that I collapse 5 times trying to find a decent static to farm. Now I'm left with 5 extra wormholes that didn't close, but are all at critical mass. So nobody is going to want to use them and they will just stick around, being extra sigs till they expire. I consider that more annoying with no real benefit.


If WH's have a sizeable mass regeneration coupled with critical no longer meaning less than 5%, but somewhere between 0-45% of maximum allowable mass, people WILL take their fleets into a critically disrupted whole.... I will...

With my suggestions, a Critical WH to a C5 had between 750-1350 m kg's remaining when it turned critical. Additionally, it regens about 100m kg's / hour... A 10 man gang of Logi's, HACs, T3's, & BC's easily have less than 300m kg's of mass.... and I'll definitely bring that through for a good fight... I don't know why you think people wouldn't... Hell, 100m Kg's is a 50man hornet gang.... Why wouldn't I risk that!!!



The key factor with all of that is knowing when it went critical. A roaming fleet isn't going to know. They will just see a critical hole, so to them it will be between 0-45%. With the 0 being very relevant.

Granted you cannot say with any certainty that a fleet WILL risk it anymore than I can say with certainty that they will not. But I'd be willing to bet that a fleet coming to a system with a critical hole and non critical, which one they will likely not bother with.

In all, the potential gains by your proposals are far outweighed by the negatives. I see it as different from the current mechanics, but not necessarily better.

There is plenty of randomness in the current mechanics. In the last 3 weeks I've had 2 groups get stuck in my WH from miscalculating the remaining mass. One was their fault and one was mine ( I added mass through the hole specifically to cause it)
Joshua Lorne
The Night Crew
#10 - 2012-10-19 22:10:07 UTC
Worm hole mass mechanics work fine as is

if it ain't broke, don't fix it

would rather ccp focus on more important matters then meddling with game mechanics that aren't broken.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#11 - 2012-10-19 22:32:08 UTC
Regardless of whether its a good idea or not (and personally I think most of it will just make things unnecessarily boring and tedious) as the poster above said the mechanics how they are right now aren't especially broken and it makes little sense to dedicate development time to them before other stuff that is more in need of an overhaul, etc. is done.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-10-19 22:43:29 UTC
Its not like your ideas are bad or that they will make W-space unbearable, its just that they will make the game frustrating which is not something a game should be. Mechanics need to be pretty clear, so that players know whats going on. Otherwise you are just injecting chaos into the system, which is not fun.

Imagine if to spicy up null sec CCP decided that 1 in 4 times you press the jump gate button the gate would malfunctions and you would stay one the same side of it or if you are just flung somewhere else in the constellation. Or 1 in 20 chance that your cloaking device will not work or that you will not initiate warp due to power fluctuation in your drive.

Randomness of w-space is just fine the way it is, any more randomness and you will see people leaving or taking less risks because they don't to try sneaking in 3 caps though the mass. The current mass mechanics does its job by prevent large cap ship blobs or large BS blobs, any more chaos will simply diminish the current groups/fleets/coalitions into even smaller and more covert ops oriented groups. All that comes to mind is that we should probably not ask CCP to fix something that aint broken.
Kimberli
Miners Trade Company
Imperial Empire
#13 - 2012-10-20 05:13:22 UTC
The constant roving sociopaths (people who can fry your internet spaceship without cause or reason) keep J space more than dangerous enough. The end game for EvE is to go 'dreadlord' and kill people randomly for tears and killboards (something I keep hearing about). I suppose you could get CCP to step in and make it dangerous-er. I know at randomly intervals your ship could just explode for no apparent reason. That would make wormhole space even more exciting/difficult/frustrating.

Hopefully there will always be enough doozers for the fraggles to prey upon (or more exactly prey upon the machinations of the doozers) when the whole of the universe becomes filled to the brim with sociopathic killer tear seekers then you get the same environment that caused the rift in UO back in the day. EvE has done a good job of keeping the field large enough so the rabbits have a place to hole up in and are not constantly preyed upon so they can build thier little fiefdoms in relative peace and harmony, until a wolf does happen through.

As much as I might begrudge the wolf - his presence is needed to create risk and danger - so he is a plot character that must be present. As long as the universe is not overrun with them. Without the wolf (and at least the risk of loss) I may as well be playing some other MMO where nothing really matters (here 'life is ours we live it our way').

No. Eve is a sandbox - a damn fine one I might add. The other people kicking over your stuff (just to watch it burn) are more than enough excitement without the sandbox owners adding mechanics that kick over your junk without reason.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#14 - 2012-10-20 15:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Derath Ellecon wrote:
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.

Leaving the door open for example in your post sounds cool. But since that open door is critical, a potentially invading fleet would just not bother as they could get as easily stuck as the ones who had been trying to collapse it.



It is mostly 'annoying and tedious' what's keeping the scrubs from invading WH in droves and driving profits into the ground. And that's because WH really isn't hard or dangerous at all these days anymore, now the players know exactly how to farm sleepers, learned to pay attention to D-scan and have plenty of capitals in their holes.

There is risk vs. reward, boredom vs. reward and frustration vs. reward. Sadly WH are now mostly the last one, because CCP doesn't know how to do the 'risk' part properly in PVE.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Kimberli
Miners Trade Company
Imperial Empire
#15 - 2012-10-21 00:47:04 UTC
I am sure they balance the amount of sleeper loots dropped with the amount of ships lost in the same level of wormhole. The more ships that explode means more drops. I do not think it is a zero sum game, but I am sure inflation is minimal since we are what 8 years into the game. There be an old saying "You don't know what you don't know." What I do know is that they have an economist on the payroll up at CCP and all those bowtie wearing clowns hate inflation. So if you want to know why melted nanoribbon drops have dwindled - thats CCP tapping the brakes.

Wormholes are like old silver mining towns - they start out all boom and then, at some point, it dries up, bust.
Tahna Rouspel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2012-10-21 03:11:23 UTC
Kimberli wrote:
The constant roving sociopaths (people who can fry your internet spaceship without cause or reason) keep J space more than dangerous enough. The end game for EvE is to go 'dreadlord' and kill people randomly for tears and killboards (something I keep hearing about). I suppose you could get CCP to step in and make it dangerous-er. I know at randomly intervals your ship could just explode for no apparent reason. That would make wormhole space even more exciting/difficult/frustrating.

Hopefully there will always be enough doozers for the fraggles to prey upon (or more exactly prey upon the machinations of the doozers) when the whole of the universe becomes filled to the brim with sociopathic killer tear seekers then you get the same environment that caused the rift in UO back in the day. EvE has done a good job of keeping the field large enough so the rabbits have a place to hole up in and are not constantly preyed upon so they can build thier little fiefdoms in relative peace and harmony, until a wolf does happen through.

As much as I might begrudge the wolf - his presence is needed to create risk and danger - so he is a plot character that must be present. As long as the universe is not overrun with them. Without the wolf (and at least the risk of loss) I may as well be playing some other MMO where nothing really matters (here 'life is ours we live it our way').

No. Eve is a sandbox - a damn fine one I might add. The other people kicking over your stuff (just to watch it burn) are more than enough excitement without the sandbox owners adding mechanics that kick over your junk without reason.


I think a more appropriate analogy would be a snow field. People get together and build snow forts, then for no apparent reason decide that they want to destroy the other people's castle so that they can be king of winter forts! Snow war ensues.
firewalker220
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-10-21 05:28:29 UTC
All I'd like to see is more/unpredictable dynamic wormholes so people are forced to interact with more wh's and thus people. Leave statics as is imo
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-10-21 08:26:37 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
None of that seems like it would make things any "better". Just more annoying and tedious.


^this.

the suggestions are all bad IMO, by far the worst one is the 50% chance you'll get stuck out when collapsing, even if you do the maths right.
being able to close WHs is absolutely essential to pretty much all WH activities.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
William Bowman
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-10-21 10:31:36 UTC
50 50 chance of getting stuck ? To he'll with it. . Why not make gates have a 50 50 chance of blowing up your ship as gate mechanics are easy to manipulate also !
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#20 - 2012-10-22 15:12:36 UTC
Tahna Rouspel wrote:
Kimberli wrote:
The constant roving sociopaths (people who can fry your internet spaceship without cause or reason) keep J space more than dangerous enough. The end game for EvE is to go 'dreadlord' and kill people randomly for tears and killboards (something I keep hearing about). I suppose you could get CCP to step in and make it dangerous-er. I know at randomly intervals your ship could just explode for no apparent reason. That would make wormhole space even more exciting/difficult/frustrating.

Hopefully there will always be enough doozers for the fraggles to prey upon (or more exactly prey upon the machinations of the doozers) when the whole of the universe becomes filled to the brim with sociopathic killer tear seekers then you get the same environment that caused the rift in UO back in the day. EvE has done a good job of keeping the field large enough so the rabbits have a place to hole up in and are not constantly preyed upon so they can build thier little fiefdoms in relative peace and harmony, until a wolf does happen through.

As much as I might begrudge the wolf - his presence is needed to create risk and danger - so he is a plot character that must be present. As long as the universe is not overrun with them. Without the wolf (and at least the risk of loss) I may as well be playing some other MMO where nothing really matters (here 'life is ours we live it our way').

No. Eve is a sandbox - a damn fine one I might add. The other people kicking over your stuff (just to watch it burn) are more than enough excitement without the sandbox owners adding mechanics that kick over your junk without reason.


I think a more appropriate analogy would be a snow field. People get together and build snow forts, then for no apparent reason decide that they want to destroy the other people's castle so that they can be king of winter forts! Snow war ensues.


Is this a bad thing?
123Next page