These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

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

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#41 - 2012-10-23 20:14:47 UTC
Meytal wrote:
And if you blindly jump into a wormhole without already having scanning scouts in that system watching the hole and your targets, you deserve to be trapped and podded. That's the same kind of critical thinking skill that causes people to blind-warp a 4 bil Orca to a wormhole that is off dscan, or blindly jump a freighter into a crit hole that wasn't crit a few minutes earlier.


I count "having scanning scouts in that system" as "being able to make tactical decisions about whether or not we're gonna dieeee" :)

I like to think of those latter cases as EVE saying "SPECIAL DELIVERY!"
Castor Troyy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-10-24 06:28:38 UTC
Stick to null sec dude....leave the wh brainstorming to us
Merch BAYLOR
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-10-24 12:07:13 UTC
I'd like to highlight that with the proposed changes things might go in the following direction:

You bring a hole down to a critical state. most of the WH dwllers won't venture through a crit hole with the 0-45% remaining mass numbers, with the 0 being taken into consideration seriously, as people have said before.

Now, you will already have a new static spawn in your wormhole, farm it up, and bring it down to critical again to spawn a new one and continue with your farm. You won't collapse it completely due to the unfortunate possibility of having a pilot stuck on the other side. 50% chances are damn high!

Add the high mass regen rate you mentioned on critical holes, and what do you get??? Mostly permanent connections between WH systems!!
This goes completely against the randomness the WH life is supposed to be! It'll be like having somewhat limited jump gates between WH systems, and that is not what the WH life is all about.
Sandslinger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-10-28 15:44:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sandslinger
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


[quote]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?


wrong, just plain wrong...

The vast majority of manipulated cycling is NOT done to "get more sites" It's to find other people to kill or to set yourself up to kill them.................................................

What are you trying to fix here ? Because the idea doesn't fix anything it simply makes it awkard and harder for pvp corps to operate.

closing/critting the static does not make anyone much safer, again the vast majority of ganks happen from people opening connections directly to other people or to the system they are active in.
once enemy is found you prevent the enemy from closing hole simply by bubbling it.

If this is introduced all someone has to do is reduce the hole then leave a capital on the opposing side with a mobile bubble if someone lands on the capital they jump the capital back in thus closing the hole.

What you system allows is for someone to open a connection into a enemy then seed the enemys system with dozens of capitals before it closes. Thus making all wormholes insanely susceptible to invasions and increasing blobbing in wormholes even more.

No offence but they are all round terribad ideas
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#45 - 2012-10-28 17:34:04 UTC
Sandslinger wrote:

If this is introduced all someone has to do is reduce the hole then leave a capital on the opposing side with a mobile bubble if someone lands on the capital they jump the capital back in thus closing the hole.

What you system allows is for someone to open a connection into a enemy then seed the enemys system with dozens of capitals before it closes. Thus making all wormholes insanely susceptible to invasions and increasing blobbing in wormholes even more.

No offence but they are all round terribad ideas


Gizznitt wrote:

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.


You must have not read the first line, where closing a WH is not a get-out-of-jail free card, where I address this issue by creating a 50/50 chance a ship won't actually travel through a WH if it closes with their passage... Your suggested use of a capital would leave quite a few stranded capitals... without support...

And here's a few other thoughts for you:
1.) People can close a WH now, just like you suggested, using capitals... the difference is my suggestion makes it risky to do so...

2.) This will not seed dozens of capitals into a WH... Maybe an extra 2 or 3 if people really use the mass regen to the fullest, but when coupled with the lifetime reduction, you certainly won't get dozens of caps...

3.) No offense, but your response was ill-thought out and full of unrealistic slippery slopes. Please elaborate on any "other" problems you see...

Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-10-28 18:32:53 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
3.) No offense, but your response was ill-thought out and full of unrealistic slippery slopes. Please elaborate on any "other" problems you see...




Funny, I was thinking that statement fits perfectly to your original ideas. You have done an excellent job of ignoring or dismissing (without any decent defense) most if not all of the arguments against this idea.

Let's try again.

So according to your idea, it will become far more risky to collapse a WH. But it will also become unnecessary since a new static will spawn before the original is collapsed.

This will leave open WH's available for travel. BUT they will show as stage 3 with a potential mass remaining from 43% to 0%.

You seem to claim that a roaming WH gang will happily risk jumping their fleet through such a WH. I, as well as others have refuted that, with examples.

The basic concept being, that unless you were watching someone collapsing that WH, you have NO idea how much mass is left. Sure it could be 43%. But it also could be almost 0%.

I can tell you, nothing says fun like getting part of your fleet stuck on the wrong side of a Collapsed WH, turning your roam into a "F**K now I gotta scan a way home"

So faced with a choice, a roaming gang will always pick a safer WH to jump through. And if none exist they will likely still not bother risking the unknown, potentially soon to collapse choice.

So couple this fact, with the fact that now it is far more troublesome and risky to actually chain collapse your static looking for fights, your proposal will likely REDUCE the amount of roaming PVP in WH space, not make it more likely.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#47 - 2012-10-28 22:22:18 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
3.) No offense, but your response was ill-thought out and full of unrealistic slippery slopes. Please elaborate on any "other" problems you see...




Funny, I was thinking that statement fits perfectly to your original ideas. You have done an excellent job of ignoring or dismissing (without any decent defense) most if not all of the arguments against this idea.

Let's try again.

So according to your idea, it will become far more risky to collapse a WH. But it will also become unnecessary since a new static will spawn before the original is collapsed.

This will leave open WH's available for travel. BUT they will show as stage 3 with a potential mass remaining from 43% to 0%.

You seem to claim that a roaming WH gang will happily risk jumping their fleet through such a WH. I, as well as others have refuted that, with examples.

The basic concept being, that unless you were watching someone collapsing that WH, you have NO idea how much mass is left. Sure it could be 43%. But it also could be almost 0%.

I can tell you, nothing says fun like getting part of your fleet stuck on the wrong side of a Collapsed WH, turning your roam into a "F**K now I gotta scan a way home"

So faced with a choice, a roaming gang will always pick a safer WH to jump through. And if none exist they will likely still not bother risking the unknown, potentially soon to collapse choice.

So couple this fact, with the fact that now it is far more troublesome and risky to actually chain collapse your static looking for fights, your proposal will likely REDUCE the amount of roaming PVP in WH space, not make it more likely.


I've tried to address most of the arguments brought up against this.... I'll address your specific argument now:

Included in the suggestions, was to give each wormhole a significant mass regeneration rate (especially if critical). I suggested a regen rate that on many wormholes would be around 100m kg / hr.... 100m kg's is enough to send 8 Hurricanes through.... How big a whole do you need for your roaming gang?? To be frank, I think your wrong... I really think people WILL risk traveling through critical WH's, and I think having the extra WHs spawned will result in more pew pew...

The increased uncertainty in the mass is actually to discourage people from purposely closing a whole... and the regen rate insures that even if they take the time to get the mass very low, if they don't close it, it will regen quickly enough to allow others to utilize it...

I'll admit, perhaps I just suggested something too complicated, and really CCP should just increase the number of WH spawns... but seeing as WH's spawning are a double edged sword, I thought putting it in the hands of players was appropriate.

For the most part, I do seriously think about the suggestions I put forward, and I welcome any criticisms. We won't agree on everything, but that's alright. What other points of this suggestion do you feel are ill-thought out?
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-10-28 22:52:58 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Included in the suggestions, was to give each wormhole a significant mass regeneration rate (especially if critical). I suggested a regen rate that on many wormholes would be around 100m kg / hr.... 100m kg's is enough to send 8 Hurricanes through.... How big a whole do you need for your roaming gang?? To be frank, I think your wrong... I really think people WILL risk traveling through critical WH's, and I think having the extra WHs spawned will result in more pew pew...


Ok you think I'm wrong. You've said that already. What you still fail to do however is give any argument as to why I am wrong. Keep in mind that not only me, but others have posted in this thread (all of which are WH dwellers and roam plenty through WH space) have said the same thing. These are people with lots of experience roaming WH. And you are saying they are all wrong when they state they wouldn't risk their fleet going through an unknown critical WH.

It again, doesn't matter how fast it regens either. If you encounter one, you have no way of knowing how much mass has been through it. How long has it been sitting there regenerating? Bottom line is you don't know.

How often do you roam WH space? How many times have you gotten stuck? The last time I got my Onyx stuck through a WH that collapsed behind me (which happened to be a C4/C5) it took me 4 hours to find a route back to k-space and then back to our home WH again. Took a lot of the fun out of the roam. This is the sort of experience I am using to come up with my reasoning against people risking their fleet with a Wh that is on the verge of collapse. What is your counter to say I'm wrong, beyond just a "feeling"

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
The increased uncertainty in the mass is actually to discourage people from purposely closing a whole... and the regen rate insures that even if they take the time to get the mass very low, if they don't close it, it will regen quickly enough to allow others to utilize it...


This is a good example of how your solution is one in search of a problem. People collapsing their static isn't necessarily what kills off PVP (especially ganks). Many of the ganks generally come from a random incoming k162 that someone doesnt notice, not their static. Many of these k162's come from a corps ability to quickly and easiy chain collapse their static. In this case your "solution" is a double edged sword as it is the ease in which corps can collapse that allows them to cycle systems in search of targets.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I'll admit, perhaps I just suggested something too complicated, and really CCP should just increase the number of WH spawns... but seeing as WH's spawning are a double edged sword, I thought putting it in the hands of players was appropriate.


I'd be all for an increase in randomly spawning WH connections.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
For the most part, I do seriously think about the suggestions I put forward, and I welcome any criticisms. We won't agree on everything, but that's alright. What other points of this suggestion do you feel are ill-thought out?


To reiterate, the biggest issue is this being a solution in search of a problem. And given CCP's workload, there are certainly many other issues I'd personally rather seem them address.
Sandslinger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-10-29 04:41:08 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Sandslinger wrote:

If this is introduced all someone has to do is reduce the hole then leave a capital on the opposing side with a mobile bubble if someone lands on the capital they jump the capital back in thus closing the hole.

What you system allows is for someone to open a connection into a enemy then seed the enemys system with dozens of capitals before it closes. Thus making all wormholes insanely susceptible to invasions and increasing blobbing in wormholes even more.

No offence but they are all round terribad ideas


Gizznitt wrote:

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.


You must have not read the first line, where closing a WH is not a get-out-of-jail free card, where I address this issue by creating a 50/50 chance a ship won't actually travel through a WH if it closes with their passage... Your suggested use of a capital would leave quite a few stranded capitals... without support...

And here's a few other thoughts for you:
1.) People can close a WH now, just like you suggested, using capitals... the difference is my suggestion makes it risky to do so...

2.) This will not seed dozens of capitals into a WH... Maybe an extra 2 or 3 if people really use the mass regen to the fullest, but when coupled with the lifetime reduction, you certainly won't get dozens of caps...

3.) No offense, but your response was ill-thought out and full of unrealistic slippery slopes. Please elaborate on any "other" problems you see...




Ahh was a bit drunk when I read it first time and misunderstood what you meant. you actually mean there's a 50/50 chance regardless of status of hole I thought you meant 50/50 chance when it was critted

Your idea actually makes less sense then i orginally thought.

I explained what cycling does and why ability to close holes doesn't make anyone safer under current mechanics.

Hell if you couldn't close the hole all you need to do is actually Stick a ton of bubbles on it, you know the way they do in 0,0 all over the place except here you can't even cyno or blackops in.

you can't do this with incoming K162 because the fleet that opened it will immediatly bubble the hole if they intend to use it.

Also for big fleet fights like, take this one for example.

http://no-ho.com/killboard/?a=kill_related&kll_id=4571

Ballsy as hell move from their part and if it hadn't been for a couple of tactical errors ( and the fact that more and more of our cap pilots kept logging on and warping in) they could have won that fight

However no effin way in hell would they have risked that big a fleet if there was a 50/50 chance that their last capital (you know the capitals that has to go last) had a 50/50% chance of not getting in.

Hell no wormhole corp with half an ounce of sense would risk their entire fleet on a cointoss that the capitals, the ships that make or break fights don't actually make it into the WH.

It would be the true end of "testicle deep" for ever

Sorry but just no it is a terrible idea, I approve of the enthusiasm and I am not saying your a terrible poster or anything but the idea is truly terrible.

On the other hand I really like the idea of roaming statics, more connections means more opportunities for pew simple as that.
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2012-10-29 09:16:23 UTC
Joshua Lorne wrote:
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.


This.

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#51 - 2012-10-29 09:50:37 UTC
The system is fine, don't change it.

The point with game mechanisms in EvE is that if you master them you can control them. That's true for everything. Feature working as expected.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#52 - 2012-11-01 11:39:37 UTC
Here is a misconception; you all think Griznit is a nullbear. He is not. He spends his time derping about in Amarr-Minmatar FW being terribad. Clearly his oversupply of time spent orbiting buttons and min-maxing his ECM Drake fit have lent to him an ability to ponder stuff he has abslutely no idea about. Like wormholes.

I remember this "static storm". We were in a C3/Null hole and we spawned 75 connections to nullsec. We even managed to get two wormholes within two jumps of one another, baited a small gang in, hopped around behind them and shot them.

Then, this being the days before corp bookmarks, it turned into an almighty pain in the arse to actually pew pew, because we found a mining op in Exit 45 but do you think our dude had correctly named Exit 45 in his personal BM list? No, he had saved everything as "unknown wormhole" and hence, we missed out on ganking a bunch of hulks and an orca.

Hence, Grizznit's idea is stupid. He should shut up and learn to orbit button better.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#53 - 2012-11-01 15:15:24 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
[Included in the suggestions, was to give each wormhole a significant mass regeneration rate (especially if critical). I suggested a regen rate that on many wormholes would be around 100m kg / hr.... 100m kg's is enough to send 8 Hurricanes through.... How big a whole do you need for your roaming gang?? To be frank, I think your wrong... I really think people WILL risk traveling through critical WH's, and I think having the extra WHs spawned will result in more pew pew...


When I log in, I don't want to wait an hour on a critical static to send eight guys through there, and too bad for anyone else who logged in while we were waiting. If I find a critical hole somewhere down the chain, I don't know how long it has been critical, and I still won't want to wait for it to regenerate to a known amount. Why should I? If I, or some other scout, spots targets through a critical wormhole, what guarantee do we have that they'll still be there and raring for a fight/being delicious prey in an hour?

Waiting around in w-space is bad. It's boring. You don't want to have to do it. It is the death of pew. W-space is all about constantly seeking new content, whether it be gudfites or ganks or logistics or PvE. Anything that encourages waiting for content encourages POS spinning, not PvP.
Previous page123