These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#21 - 2014-08-06 15:00:26 UTC
Traiori wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
Personally, I think the 8.7km for an Orca feels about right.

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

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


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

Read the devblog more carefully. At 200m/s with MWD, that's 40 seconds. Once again, you'd have to warp off/on the hole to get fastest method (I think? I haven't done the exact maths on this one though, as my primary concern is dreads/carriers)


Okay, yea, I misread.

So 8.7km @ 250m/s is 35 seconds plus acceleration time for me, call it 45 seconds. Hrm. That's quite a bit harder, but probably still something I can stomach. Would definitely want/need an off-grid but close bookmark to lower risk, though it'd take longer to roll.
WoAz
Criterion.
Pandemic Legion
#22 - 2014-08-06 15:00:32 UTC  |  Edited by: WoAz
This makes committing 1 or 2 dreads and a triage carrier for a capital brawl nearly impossible for dread refits, as they'll almost always land out of the 5km refit range. Dropping a mobile depot isn't a solution in these fights, as any competent WH entity will prime them before they can come online.

The ability for carriers and dreads to weave through their cycles and refit is one of the more enjoyable aspects of WH Capital PvP. It's essentially obsolete on the small-gang level in K-Space due to ever growing blobs and dread/super capable entities, and would kill it for attackers here.
Arestris
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2014-08-06 15:01:10 UTC
Nice change at all! I really like it.
Gone are the times where there was no risk at all, when closing a WH.
And while it for sure need a lil bit more effort in future, I think the numbers are absolutly fine.
Glasgow Dunlop
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2014-08-06 15:05:28 UTC
Kadm wrote:
I like this change and think these numbers are perfectly acceptable. This will make people much more hesitant to just try and roll away hostiles.


Where as id like to roll to more hostiles, this just means slowing up the process no end when trying to roll, by the time yo have done 3 holes using the new meathod, you would have been able to do around 6 or 7 depending on warps and speed. All i can now see happining is a 6 bs fleet now becoming the standard for hole rolling, no more cap traps, and a lot less pew on holes, as an attacking fleet has no clue where they will be in relation to other parts of there fleet.

So now the only use for caps is now home defence and pve, while the orca is now just a mining boost ship, so why would you wantto remove on-hole pvp, as this is what WILL happen

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

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

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-08-06 15:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Chitsa Jason
There are many good arguments why this change is good and why this change is bad.

I do like the change however as someone pointed out previously it will be harder for higher class people to bring in carriers + dreads for a fight as they will not be able to refit. If there would be a possibility for all the ships to spawn in same random direction for their designated ranges and dread + carrier ranges would be the same I would be happy.

Plus make it so that if you jump into kspace you are not dragged away from the wh. A lot of time wspace people will fight on the wormhole with null sec blob and the reason we can do that is that we can just jump back to wh.

No matter how the change ends up being in the end it will shake up wspace quite a bit.

super graphic: http://i.imgur.com/jYofIa7.png

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
FistyMcBumBardier
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-08-06 15:07:04 UTC
Good change +1
Nox Arnoux
New Jovian Exploration Department
New Jovian Collective
#27 - 2014-08-06 15:07:32 UTC
Traiori wrote:
Nox Arnoux wrote:
You push this change through, and no one will commit capitals into someone else's system ever again. The odds are already stacked heavily in favour of home defenders, why make it even more lopsided?


In the interests of providing the devs with information that they don't appear to have, how often do you commit multiple capitals into a hostile system during a fight?


We commit the maximum number of capitals to every major wormhole engagement that takes place in someone else's home system. This accounts for the vast majority of the wormhole engagement against other wormhole entities by NoHo in the last 6-8 months.
Lamhoofd Hashur
Overload This
#28 - 2014-08-06 15:09:43 UTC
Besides the points noted before by Traiori I would like to point out two other (maybe unintended) side effects.

1. Using multiple carriers in any fight will become useless. The goal of having multiple carriers is most of the times to have the ability to refit of each other and thus become more versatile. Similar to this sometimes carriers are brought in to support dreads so they can refit as well.

By causing capitals to be far apart from each other this gameplay is (mostly) taken away from the group who jumps into the other one. The 'defender' has the time to setup their caps in the way they want. Thus resulting in a benefit for camping the WH until the other guys jump in, even more then currently is the case already.

2. Using multiple dreads will become more powerful. Since dreads are not cluttered together anymore they (in general) will be able to shoot subcaps better, since you will be unable to lower your angular for multiple dreads at the same time.
Papa Django
Materials Harvesting Kombinat
#29 - 2014-08-06 15:10:40 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Please keep your feedback constructive and in accordance with the forum rules.

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

Thank you!


The problem is simple.

You think we roll connexions to close them to be safe to farm leading to less content for other player which is true in only one case : farming in cap.

But it is a BIG mistake.

90% of the time, we roll connexion to find new content (for HS acces, to farm our static, to find pvp target).

Not all the wh corp have cap to farm. Others roll their static to find something to farm because home is empty or not farmable.

This change, even with the new values will make small and mid size corp life harder. Perhaps too much. Leading to less wh entities in W-Space and so less pvp and less content. The exact opposite you wanna reach.

In addition, rolling a wh for small/mid sized corp is already a thing. It is not at all 100% safe.

This change especially is a really bad one. It impact small corps on their very existence, and large corp on a strategic plan.
Muhamad Jihad
Amish Tobacco Plantation Co.
#30 - 2014-08-06 15:12:15 UTC
As a long time wormholer I think this is absurd... Many of the fights I go were because we were able to go "All In" per say and send our entire fleet to the other side with their dread on our side, thus creating an instant fight.

This change makes it SUPER easy to jump in 2 dreads be 15-30km apart form each other (optimals) and just blow up everything with very little support before enemies can even get their defense dreads on the field. Then all those pilots who were there are dead, poded and you can't actually fight, where as 2 dreads at 0 on a wh can be countered by getting under there guns
- also the mass change puts all smartbombing BS off the hole far enough to smartbomb instantly


Next, i see everything on there including Orca except Freighters... Freighters are a HUGE part of both wormholes, nullsec and logistics for lowsec/nullsec pilots, its already super easy to catch one of the slowest ships in eve by just getting a bubble ahead of it. It completely eliminates low and null pilots from scanning wormholes for logistical reasons unless they are direct, which gets rid of an entire pvp side which has been seen.


Lastly, your "unclosable" frig wormholes aren't going to be used by anyone except people who live in wormholes, because all it will do is bring giant interceptor gangs (20-30) (which are nearly impossible to counter in low numbers in k-space) to null, never into a wormhole because 20 interceptors will do absolutely 0 in a wormhole, where as 20 interceptors in null can roam 30 jumps almost uninterrupted...


Please do give #s on freighters though...
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#31 - 2014-08-06 15:13:02 UTC
I don't think the penalty this gives to larger ship use really brings much constructively to wormhole space while having a slight side effect of shifting the power balance more so towards the bigger established groups at the expense of smaller entities.

While it has some slight (but work "aroundable") implications for collapsing whs with orcas and jump mass, etc. I'd rather see something like for instance using a prop mod when jumping causing you to be thrown further out as this could be combined to make skirmish setups feasible in situations they currently aren't. (Stick a note in the wh information about how prop mods have an effect/advising turning them off).
xpaulx
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#32 - 2014-08-06 15:13:28 UTC
Time to shoot the monument
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#33 - 2014-08-06 15:18:51 UTC
xpaulx wrote:
Time to shoot the monument


There is a monument in wormhole space?
Lapin Poilu
Starbuncle Constellation
#34 - 2014-08-06 15:19:55 UTC
CCP will need to make some new modules for the ships we use to roll holes.

There is already more then enough risk in rolling a hole with an Orca let alone adding this to the equation.
WoAz
Criterion.
Pandemic Legion
#35 - 2014-08-06 15:20:09 UTC
If you want to balance PvP considerations on holes with caps against heightened risk, perhaps make it so caps spawn within range but have an immediate (and possibly shorter) polarization timer. Creates risk for all entities but saves the tedious time of pinging the cap to bring it back into the hole.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-08-06 15:20:21 UTC
I like the change but i do feel the range is too far for capitals and the orca. It's going to take them minutes to get into jump range while everything else takes seconds.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
DirtyJob
High Voltage Industries
#37 - 2014-08-06 15:21:33 UTC
Traiori wrote:
20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


I think this man touched almost all issues concerning jump to mass correlation with capitals. To add little to 3). That also means no combat rolling to cut enemy forces in half. Especially usefull against larger enemy.

I also agree that making function proportional to momentum would add another tactical flavour to wh fights.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#38 - 2014-08-06 15:21:51 UTC
Traiori wrote:
Nox Arnoux wrote:
You push this change through, and no one will commit capitals into someone else's system ever again. The odds are already stacked heavily in favour of home defenders, why make it even more lopsided?


In the interests of providing the devs with information that they don't appear to have, how often do you commit multiple capitals into a hostile system during a fight?


http://themittani.com/news/noho-versus-exit-post-downtime-brawling is a write up of a fight that happened recently where NOHO did exactly this.

I am also very concerned about the issues with jumping caps into a hostile system. I'm also concerned that this change doesn't actually add that much more risk. I also don't like the additional time it will take to roll holes, which is currently one of the only ways to catch farmers.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Von Keigai
#39 - 2014-08-06 15:23:39 UTC
I'll reiterate the criticism I already posted in the other thread.

Currently, a significant part of the danger in moving many kinds of ships in wspace is that when you jump, you may not be able to immediately cloak. 2000m is the "decloak distance", the distance at which an object prevents cloaking. Wormholes are objects. Usually you land further from the wormhole than 2000m, but often (~20%?), you land closer. If you land closer, there is the opportunity for an enemy to lock you before you can get far enough to cloak.

The risk of not being able to cloak is particularly significant for ships with covert ops cloaks, because once cloaked they can warp. It is nearly impossible to stop one of them without a bubble. Even with a bubble, because they can move at full speed they will usually escape. (And of course T3 scouts will be interdiction nullified.)

Assuming I am correctly understanding the numbers in the dev blog, after Hyperion no ship that jumps a wormhole will ever land closer than 2000m from the wormhole. In fact, even the lightest ships always land at least 3500m from it. Thus, all covert ships will be essentially uncatchable by anything but a bubble. Indeed, all ships will be far enough from the wormhole that they no longer need to worry about the geometry when they warp, because their align cannot take them within decloak distance.

This will affect my play, because currently I do try to catch scouts on wormholes in a Manticore from time to time. I know the chance is not large; in fact I have not actually caught one yet who was paying attention. Still, the chance is there. And I did catch a blockade runner once who got screwed by the RNG. If I knew there was zero chance that covert ships would ever be within the decloak distance, I would not bother to hunt them.

This change would make hunting in a cloaky ship less risky, but I don't agree with that either. Every time I come out 1600m from the wormhole is a tiny scare, and each time I survive it is a tiny victory.

vonkeigai.blogspot.com
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#40 - 2014-08-06 15:24:49 UTC
Lapin Poilu wrote:
CCP will need to make some new modules for the ships we use to roll holes.

There is already more then enough risk in rolling a hole with an Orca let alone adding this to the equation.


Personally don't think the risk side of it should be a factor aside from the slight implications of balance of power in regards to bigger entities v smaller ones - wormhole space should never be safe anyway.

That it potentially makes things quite messy for people going all in for a fight and makes hole collapsing much more of a drag without really bringing anything meaningful into the balance in doing so while some modifications of the way it works could bring more meaningful changes i.e. making skirmish setups more feasible are a bigger consideration IMO.