These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
XOS Psymon
Ehefkae
#61 - 2014-08-06 15:47:31 UTC
Hello,

In my honnest opinion, WHS is mostly designed for small entities to have access to a Null Sec Space, What i mean there, is that we can bring a 70ish pilots corporation holding a system, while it's IMPOSSIBLE in K-Space NullSec, thanks to CFC...
The only way for players of such groups to evolve within 0.0 space is to be the slave from one of those Huge PBlocks, witch is actually the real problem, that's why there is so much new commers to WHS, thsi is clearly not the point here though, but, why change WHS dynamics while it's K-SPACE 0.0 the real issue from this game, sooner or later, it's going to be like the Asian EvE Online server, 1 Power block for the whole 0.0 space ?

So, why CCP should'nt do such modifications regarding Jumping ranges?
The answer is simple, rolling will take more time, so chain-collapsing will take more time, will be more risky and more frustrating, there will be less PvP in such conditions.
The only improve for PvP, is that small group of 30-70 ish players will have their Caps/Orcas Ganked by huge groups in tehir static.

Sometime, in WHS, speed means safety, sometimes you don't want to have a 400 members corp in the WH next to you.
Of course gameplay will evolve to a new point where Cap Pilots rolling Statics will find themselve traped in the other side and ganked alone. But think about the consequences of small gangs wanting to roll quickly to make the difference versius a huge corp, it is sometime possible for small gangs to pass through the WH 3 Orcas front and back while the other orca from the huge gang is rolling, this way, it is possible for the small gang to get a fight versius a limited number of player, there we have almost the same amounts.

I Bet huge gangs will stop chain collapsing cause it's going to be a true Pain in the ass. Originally It took us about 5 hours to CC to a target C6, now it will take twice the time, we were bored already, what do you think about regarding pilots into C4/C5 doing such (x4 amounts of WH comparing to C6) ?

Having no local, and no-aggression on gate, polarization, all this factors makes WHS a tactical place to be, this is not going anywhere if you start making it no-small-gangs friendly! Plus, having orcas @20km from WH within LS/NS KSPACE, this is going to be just awfull because of the local channel.

I could love almost 70% of this patch, but this part is just no way to go for me and for the other 3 pages before this reply.

Regards,
Psymon
Reve Uhad
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2014-08-06 15:48:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Reve Uhad
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#63 - 2014-08-06 15:51:47 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.

Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure.
Posting this here as well for visibility.

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Simsung Padecain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2014-08-06 15:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Simsung Padecain
If possible, I'd like the other thread that I've created also taken into account here as a thread with player suggestions.
The community reaction to this change is very well deserved.

I'm not saying that changes are bad - I love pretty much every single thing planned for Hyperion, except this one.

I just cannot swallow it.

Reasons were listed in this and old thread, hopefully you don't need me to repeat myself.

We have been discussing this mechanic in our corp since it was discovered, and I haven't heard a positive opinion on it yet.
(Mind you, it wouldn't hurt hard knocks at all apart from time consumed while ragerolling, as we always have a complete intel on our chains, keep scouts on high alert for new sigs, we're familiar with every entity that's a threat to us in W-space).

Even if our carrier / dreadnaught gets caught, we can assemble a massive support fleet in a very little time.

Unlike smaller folks in WH. This change will be crippling to their everyday activities.
Not only finding content will be MUCH harder to do, be it PvP, PvE, or even a K-space connection to sell / buy things will bear an unreasonable risk, it will also consume much more time, basically making this game a struggle, instead of being a game (supposed to be fun right?).

Many of you probably participated in ragerolling. It requires commitment from most of the corp members (requires a big player numbers), constant high-alert as a decision to risk some tens of billion of isk might happen anytime.
Then there's time.
8 minutes per hole? That's scanning, warping, rolling, waiting for new sig and checking out the new system again.
To make the calculations easier, let's round it up to 10 holes an hour.
Only a small percentage of eve players lives in Wormholes, and most of those afaik are in c1-c2 doing industry stuff.
Chance to find a group that is active, doing something outside of their POS shields and in a position where they can be engaged in one way or another is already very low. Slowing down rage rolling isn't serving ANY positive purposes, only negative ones.
As I said - crippling to smaller group possibilites and making already painful activity (ragerolling) even worse.

I could repeat every thing that was already said, but I feel like all our moaning is to no avail.
Please prove me wrong CCP.

#edit
Reading that "fixing" active modules influence on distance convinced me that our moaning here is meaningless, as the code was already written and it's making its was to Tranquility.

I am dissapointed, and very sad.
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2014-08-06 15:53:55 UTC
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt

that doesn't seem like a good argument to me
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#66 - 2014-08-06 15:54:46 UTC
Gallosek wrote:
From the article, the stated design drivers are:

Quote:
This change is intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption. We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.


Meaning that CCP wants to stop the safety of collapsing yourself in. This mechanic does allow groups (especially small ones)to operate significantly more safely, and the proposed change does appear make it more dangerous for them. This sort of player is going to want to avoid combat regardless though, so they will probably choose to "make do with bubbles and scouts", which is only avoided as it is more annoying... however it is still fairly effective at the stated aim of "doing sites with minimal risk". In the very early days of wormholes this was a normal mode of operation, especially while pilots were mostly sub-capital and orcas were rare/expensive.

However I believe this underestimates the effect the "quick roll" mechanic has on another play style. Those who actively *seek* combat roll wormholes. This is an emergent mechanic which disrupts the above "mitigation" as well as any other defensive wormhole collapsing mechanic. Nothing about your own ability to collapse a wormhole can prepare you for an incoming connection with an interdictor (short of being bait with a fleet larger than any that may jump in).

I believe the proposed change to jump distance fails to meet the stated design goal whilst inadvertently making it SAFER for those who wish to avoid combat as it is less likely they will have a hostile gang appear from a previously uncharted wormhole connection.

The random "frigate" only wormholes are a far better counter to "complete safety" as it makes it easier to inject scouts into a system in which you can then stage a fleet in for later action.


The K162 spawn thing doesn't accomplish this goal either. It makes it far easier to warp to all your holes and not jump through to avoid spawning the other side, where previously one had to not warp to them.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

DirtyJob
High Voltage Industries
#67 - 2014-08-06 15:55:31 UTC
Traiori wrote:
DirtyJob wrote:


I also agree that making function proportional to momentum would add another tactical flavour to wh fights.


Not momentum.

Momentum would mean that slow-moving mass-heavy things (like dreads) would land as far away as fast-moving mass-light things (like ishtars).

Function should be inversely proportional to mass, but proportional to speed (probably to max speed, as to avoid the issues of trying to go through wormholes at maximum speed).

Bonus points if wormhole exit was also directional, as this could also help to solve problems regarding dread grouping.



Even better. But still makes catching covert ships much harder if not impossible.
Aender Wiggin
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#68 - 2014-08-06 15:55:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Aender Wiggin
I've been living in one WH or another ever since they were implemented and and here is my 2 cents:

In addition to Traiori's original arguments with which I completely agree, I'd like to add that the spawn range distance will discourage small and medium groups from rolling their statics and since large groups are verry scace in WH space, it makes WH chains a lot more static/unchangin overall.

You will basically be able to relly that system A which is currently connected to system B via 7 WHs, will still be connected 10 hours from now (as long as no WHs large groups live in the interim systems and no WHs naturally reached end of life). The increased number of random WHs won't make any difference in this.

As per people 'adapting' and finding new ways to colapse WHs, you can only make an orca/dread move so fast , can only field so many 'colapse' fit battleships in a medium sized corp and untimately ain't nobody got time for that. Rather just treat WHs chains like nullspace and just go roaming in them .... I sincearly hope this is not what's actually intended becauseif so, I'd rather just go back to mining which is what i did for the first 2 years of eve.

Go with Bob, keep Him always in your heart. He is your Sword, Shield, and the Knife in your back.

Alexis Dy'neren
Exis Heavy
#69 - 2014-08-06 15:56:55 UTC
As somebody who has been really enjoying flying the Prospect since it was released, this change is a good thing for me. The survivability of covops frigates travelling through wormholes is currently drastically reduced by the fact that they will sometimes spawn on the other side of a wormhole less than 2000m away from the entrance & thus be unable to immediately re-cloak - jumping into a camp & trying to warp off is almost certain death if the campers are paying any attention. If I understand this change, the new lowest distance to spawn from the hole will be about 3.5km, which will certainly give me more confidence to dive into more wormholes & will hopefully encourage other explorers/ninja-gas-harvesters to do the same.
Zmikund
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-08-06 15:57:03 UTC
This idea is bad for so many reasons written above ... if u want to slow down wormhole rolling how about making it less invasive into actual combat tactics ... as was written above, dreads spawning too far from carrier makes big tactical disadvantage ...
How about adding mass-based jump timer instead mass-based wormhole distance ...
For example ... average dread after jumping trough wormohle will have 150 sec jump timer for any wormhole ... timer will start ticking after decloack ... Carrier 120 sec, BS 30 sec etc.
Traiori
Going Critical
#71 - 2014-08-06 15:57:27 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.

Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure.
Posting this here as well for visibility.


This implies that dreads are going to land even further away once modules do start to have a place in that calculation. If not for the fact that distance is already irrelevant if it's more than 15km, I'd be worried.

This might make Orca pilots a little nervous however. More slowboating backwards...
WoAz
Criterion.
Northern Coalition.
#72 - 2014-08-06 15:57:38 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt

that doesn't seem like a good argument to me


Rage-rolling to force connections is part of that uncertainty for the receiving end. This makes it much more difficult for larger entities to brew content.
Gallosek
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#73 - 2014-08-06 15:58:57 UTC
Two step wrote:
Gallosek wrote:
From the article, the stated design drivers are:

Quote:
This change is intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption. We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.


Meaning that CCP wants to stop the safety of collapsing yourself in. This mechanic does allow groups (especially small ones)to operate significantly more safely, and the proposed change does appear make it more dangerous for them. This sort of player is going to want to avoid combat regardless though, so they will probably choose to "make do with bubbles and scouts", which is only avoided as it is more annoying... however it is still fairly effective at the stated aim of "doing sites with minimal risk". In the very early days of wormholes this was a normal mode of operation, especially while pilots were mostly sub-capital and orcas were rare/expensive.

However I believe this underestimates the effect the "quick roll" mechanic has on another play style. Those who actively *seek* combat roll wormholes. This is an emergent mechanic which disrupts the above "mitigation" as well as any other defensive wormhole collapsing mechanic. Nothing about your own ability to collapse a wormhole can prepare you for an incoming connection with an interdictor (short of being bait with a fleet larger than any that may jump in).

I believe the proposed change to jump distance fails to meet the stated design goal whilst inadvertently making it SAFER for those who wish to avoid combat as it is less likely they will have a hostile gang appear from a previously uncharted wormhole connection.

The random "frigate" only wormholes are a far better counter to "complete safety" as it makes it easier to inject scouts into a system in which you can then stage a fleet in for later action.


The K162 spawn thing doesn't accomplish this goal either. It makes it far easier to warp to all your holes and not jump through to avoid spawning the other side, where previously one had to not warp to them.


Agreed, I was referring to the "frigate sized wormholes that you couldn't collapse" though. THEY make it easier to insert scouts as how many who avoid combat are going to camp a WH for 16 hours straight... every time
Centurax
Blackbird Security Networks
R A P T O R
#74 - 2014-08-06 15:59:15 UTC
On first view I would have to say no to this feature, but I am sure that those of us who live in WHs will quickly adapt to this, but adding needless extra time to hole rolling is not the answer here.

If this stays in the expansion then perhaps adding a module to a ship that significantly increases the mass of a smaller faster ship so that they could be used as an alternative to jumping a Dread/Carrier through a WH, this would be a good solution for smaller corps that operate in WHs. Would be nice to have something as an alternative to jumping an Orca back and forth all the time to collapse holes.
Dorijan
W-Space IT Department
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#75 - 2014-08-06 15:59:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dorijan
CCP Lebowski wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.

Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure.
Posting this here as well for visibility.


CCP releasing unfinished ... ahem "features"? Cool
Reve Uhad
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2014-08-06 16:00:00 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt

that doesn't seem like a good argument to me


The dynamic quality of wormholes creates an environment where you can go several days without having anything to shoot. This being a game where the primary goal is to shoot things, some amount of control needs to be there. We're not suggesting we get a menu where we can select which hole we roll into next, and we're not asking for any advantage we haven't already had. We're just asking that the current mechanic not be made worse.

Rena Senn
Halal Gunnery
#77 - 2014-08-06 16:00:50 UTC
It's an unfortunate fact of game design that people who live in high end wormholes for any significant amount of time usually end up training POS Spinning V out of necessity. We might not like it, but the truth of the fact is that it's often a much larger hassle to do replacement shopping and get ships (especially caps) back in the hole after being podded out, than it is to just go play DoA or something and wait out an enemy gang who significantly outnumbers you. Most of us don't mind a close or even uphill fight, but jumping into an obviously suicidal situation in a whale of a ship and getting podded is just pointlessly masochistic. Thus the wormhole environment itself actually encourages people to stop playing the game when certain common situations occur.

Capital ship combat rolling was one of the few ways for a smaller group to try and even the battlefield by using a maneuver that was already at high risk of being trapped by cloaked gangs. Now with this change you've ensured that many more groups who find themselves outnumbered will either log off or arrange inconsequential duels at the sun, instead of commit to fights in that admirably foolhardy way that tends to generate player driven content, get recounted at news sites and fanfest pub crawls, and retain PVP loving customers in the long run.

The question you have to ask yourself is not "if people still roll holes with caps, will engagements around the hole be more interesting?" or "assuming people still roll holes with caps, will they come up with interesting new strategies?" but rather "given that everyone will know ahead of time the risks and labor involved for loss replacement, will people still roll holes with caps at all when they don't have to?" As you can very clearly see from both threads, the majority consensus from people who actually live in high end wormholes and have to deal with your mechanics every day, the answer is a resounding NO.

The option when rolling has always been either use caps, don't use caps, or don't roll at all. Those last two options aren't going anywhere, and despite many wormholers being Scrooge McDuck rich, the logistics of replacing wormhole cap losses haven't gotten any easier or less tedious. Is the goal of this change to encourage people to do tedious activities more often, or more frequently log out and stop playing? If that's not the case, then from a game design perspective your intentions are obviously not going to line up with your results.
Snakes-On-A-Plane
#78 - 2014-08-06 16:01:34 UTC
IMO, we have to stop assuming that increasing the risk of conflict = more conflict. That's simply not true. CCP, you have years of data to prove it's not true. All of your data tells you it is not.

Look at low sec. There's more risk to miners. So by this logic, there should be lots of miner kills in lowsec. Check your data, but I think we all know it doesn't happen often. Question: What actually did increase conflict in low sec? Why, allowing a high income for cheap ships. Decreasing the risk for PVE, increased PVP.

The Mittani apparently understood the truth, as he posted that ratters are the plankton of the Nullsec food chain. What is good for ratters is good for their hunters, and for the hunters of the hunters, and so on up the chain. The concept is universal in all areas of Eve, and probably many other games. Increasing the attractiveness of an area for PVE, will increase it's attractiveness for PVP.

Why is this not understood?

If you intend to make it less safe for PVE, you have to institute a corresponding change to make PVE more valuable to match the increased risk. Otherwise, you're going to end up with less... Plankton. BTW, this is exactly what happened when making grav sigs into ore anoms.

This is sort of a general comment aimed at many of your changes.

-We will have constant frigate holes into systems where miners can be caught just by warping to an ore anom. What miner in his right mind will ever mine with one of these small WH's in his system? They will POS-hug for the entire day, at best. This also applies to running anoms in low-class wormholes, where a pack of frigates can easily take down a solo site runner. After a few cheap kills, they simply won't do it anymore, and activity will decrease all the way up the food chain. If you still want miners to die in wormholes, you're going to need to throw them a bone so they come out of their dens. Bring back Grav sigs IMO.

-You have made it more difficult to use one mechanism a miner or (low class solo) site runner still has to maintain any level of safety. Hole control. Personally I don't like hole-control being used as the means to safety, and would prefer the grav sigs return with their need to watch the D. But you've provided no counterbalance to what will seem to them to be a nerf. Continually adjusting the game to remove whatever means the PVErs try to use to balance their risk, is just going to reduce their activity in J-space. It's not going to give us more kills. It's going to give us less kills.

This is my primary objection when considering these two changes. Though not my only one.

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#79 - 2014-08-06 16:02:11 UTC
Reve Uhad wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt

that doesn't seem like a good argument to me


The dynamic quality of wormholes creates an environment where you can go several days without having anything to shoot. This being a game where the primary goal is to shoot things, some amount of control needs to be there. We're not suggesting we get a menu where we can select which hole we roll into next, and we're not asking for any advantage we haven't already had. We're just asking that the current mechanic not be made worse.


that argument is obsoleted by "We will be significantly increasing the spawn rate of all the existing wormholes that originate in W-space"
Witchway
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#80 - 2014-08-06 16:02:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Witchway
First off, I want to make it clear that I do not represent all of Hard Knocks or in what portion I do infact represent because at the very core you have much of HK split on this issue. In my opinion this is a direct attack on larger wormhole based entities. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I fought for a very long time to shrink HK and get us under 200 pilots.

I think the thing to keep in mind when doing these 6 week patches is that you need to test them more than 2 weeks. This is a fairly massive change to the way wormholes currently function and even with all the negative feedback in just the last few days, it seems you haven't given much of a care and decided to go ahead anyways. In fact, if you took this out of the patch and moved forward without just the remaining changes I have no doubt that wormholers would praise this as one of the better patches for us since the original induction, largely because the remaining patches are manageable tweaks as opposed to sweeping changes to the fundamentals of wormholes space.

Let's be honest here, we all know there are people who have holes for the sole purpose of making boatloads of ISK. The reality to that is those pilots have spent billions in additional pilots and ships and are taking a massive 5 minute risk in order to reap their rewards with no local and people like Hard Knocks trying to find them and kill them. Comparatively the risk is almost non-existent for an IS Boxer running incursions or any plain old ratting carrier who is semi paying attention. This patch could easily double, possibly even triple the risk they take for no additional reward. Consequently it may no longer be reasonable risk for them to continue with the status quo thus providing less content to entities who primarily hunt as an occupation such as Hard Knocks and others.

That being said, many of these wormholes are owned and run by members of larger entities because the ISK making opportunities in larger corps are scarce as you are forced to share profits with increasingly more mouths on less substance. I am not saying they shouldn't have any risk, but spawning capitals 20k off a wormhole is not the way to do it. Mostly because it makes rolling wormholes harder, and near impossible for smaller entities but also limits our ability to engage k-space entities without knowing those capitals will die.

This change must be removed in my opinion. Find me another way to increase risk, and I'll gladly swap it for the ability to not spawn 20km off a wormhole in a 7B dread.

Official Shit Talking Captain, Bastard of Hard Knocks Inc.