These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kadm
Catfish Gumbo
#121 - 2014-08-06 16:47:48 UTC
So let me ask: Is it really a bad thing if people stop using capitals to roll wormholes? How is forcing people to use battleships a big negative? Maybe you can't field ten players or ten battleships? Well, use five. You may get caught while waiting for the second pass, but a few minutes is acceptable. You should not be able to instantly and safely roll holes with them. It doesn't matter why you're rolling. You could be NOHO wanting a cap fight, or you could be a group of VOC alts running a three man expo system. Neither group should get risk free rolling. If you can't live without risk free rolling, you don't belong in WH space.
Endo Riftbreaker
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#122 - 2014-08-06 16:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Endo Riftbreaker
As the operator of a small WH corp, I have to say I like all the changes except this one. If you're going to add significantly more wandering holes, and non-closable frigate holes, we need to have some way to control our risk.

I have no issue putting assets at stake in PvE and PvP as long as it's a reasonable risk/reward profile. With the addition of so many new avenues of attack, and the reduction in capabilities to respond to that risk, you've significantly shifted the risk profile of lower class wormholes (typically inhabited by lower capability corps/solo players) but not done anything on the reward side.

Please note that I'm not advocating for a buff in loot buy orders or anything, just noting something that by its very nature will lead to more risk averse behavior, which doesn't seem like the intended consequence of these changes.

Additionally - one of the things I very much enjoy about W space is the feeling of isolation. I like the experience of being off in a system by myself running a site or exploring while perhaps being hunted by a solo pilot in a bomber, or by a small gang (and vice versa). And while I applaud the idea of making W space more vibrant, I'm a little concerned that by adding so many new holes that the space will become very crowded. Just a thought.

I would also like to add strong support for a clone swapping POS module - I'd love to get down and dirty rolling around in a T1 frigate with newbros and taking the high sec express back home, but not with a fancy pod.
Dark Armata
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2014-08-06 16:50:14 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.


So despite pages of replies across 2 threads.

This comment only proves you are not listening at all to the player feedback you requested as you are still spending more development time on this.

Honestly, as someone said earlier;

Pull this one part of Hyperion and wormholers will hail this the best update ever.

Some amazing stuff in the dev blog, please don't ruin it. Please.

W-Space IS Best Space

Witchway
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#124 - 2014-08-06 16:50:34 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


You mean like being able to control nullsec systems by preventing cynos and bubbling gates out to 100km?

Official Shit Talking Captain, Bastard of Hard Knocks Inc.

na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
#125 - 2014-08-06 16:52:05 UTC
hm.. funny -- i dont see anything about allowing clone swaps in wormholes -- did that get missed? why do we have this garbage change instead? Can we trade in this proposed change for the clone pods in POS?
Xaldafax Caerleon
Veritas Theory
#126 - 2014-08-06 16:52:06 UTC
CCP.... What really is this trying to solve?

Are you trying to solve ragerolling? Then solve it in a way that makes sense. Make it harder for people that just pop holes quickly. Distance away from hole will not help that.

If you are trying to solve something else does it need large ships to be farther away? Then restate why you are doing so all these people stop bitching about possibly loosing a large ship.

And I wouldn't think about switching the numbers around because if smaller ships are farther away, then again... what are you trying to solve? You are just making me risk a smaller ship.

Remember when people jump into a WH they have NO protection from whoever is in that WH space. We have no station, no other gates, nothing else to get away from those people that might be camping. At least in HS, LS, Null you have options minus being at a dead end system.
Admiral Douros
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#127 - 2014-08-06 16:52:23 UTC
As a wormhole resident, I don't like this idea at all. Rolling our c5 static is already a nail-biting process when we know that someone is active on the other side. Forcing a carrier to slowboat potentially 16km means that it's sitting there basically defenseless until it gets back, since we've already reduced the hole mass by more than half (assuming we jump a few battleships through with it). You're also welcoming hostiles to close the hole before you can make it back through by jumping their own battleships through and back.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#128 - 2014-08-06 16:54:11 UTC
This change is well-appreciated. It adds risk for attacking, as caps and other slow moving assets no longer have a get out of jail free card by spawning within range of the wormhole they just jumped through. It also slows down the rapacity at which established parties can cycle their wormholes and limits their ability to consume resources far afield of what they are able to control, allowing for more parties to enter wormhole space in general. All in all, a good change for the health of the game.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Kadm
Catfish Gumbo
#129 - 2014-08-06 16:55:09 UTC
Admiral Douros wrote:
As a wormhole resident, I don't like this idea at all. Rolling our c5 static is already a nail-biting process when we know that someone is active on the other side. Forcing a carrier to slowboat potentially 16km means that it's sitting there basically defenseless until it gets back, since we've already reduced the hole mass by more than half (assuming we jump a few battleships through with it). You're also welcoming hostiles to close the hole before you can make it back through by jumping their own battleships through and back.


Your solution is to use battleships instead, and get through and back quicker? I dunno. Seems pretty simple.
Fireflynine
Wormhole Exploration And Production
#130 - 2014-08-06 16:55:26 UTC
Mass-Based Spawn Distance after Wormhole Jumps---- rejected by Fireflythegreat
Dark Armata
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2014-08-06 16:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Dark Armata
Kadm wrote:
So let me ask: Is it really a bad thing if people stop using capitals to roll wormholes? How is forcing people to use battleships a big negative? Maybe you can't field ten players or ten battleships? Well, use five. You may get caught while waiting for the second pass, but a few minutes is acceptable. You should not be able to instantly and safely roll holes with them. It doesn't matter why you're rolling. You could be NOHO wanting a cap fight, or you could be a group of VOC alts running a three man expo system. Neither group should get risk free rolling. If you can't live without risk free rolling, you don't belong in WH space.


Because this means rage rolling will take SOO much longer. If you can't field the requisite number of battleships.

Also means all those battleship pilots will have to reship if something is found in the next wormhole.

W-Space IS Best Space

biz Antollare
The Dark Space Initiative
The Initiative.
#132 - 2014-08-06 16:56:19 UTC
Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.

I love all the other changes being proposed.

However this one needs to be scratched.

Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there.
CCP Lebowski
C C P
C C P Alliance
#133 - 2014-08-06 16:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Lebowski
Dark Armata wrote:
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.


So despite pages of replies across 2 threads.

This comment only proves you are not listening at all to the player feedback you requested as you are still spending more development time on this.

Honestly, as someone said earlier;

Pull this one part of Hyperion and wormholers will hail this the best update ever.

Some amazing stuff in the dev blog, please don't ruin it. Please.
As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release.

EDIT: After rereading my post I feel I should clarify, considering the impact of a feature on gameplay and user experience is also part of being a QA analyst, its just not my place to comment on that on the forums!

CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0

@CCP_Lebowski

Kadm
Catfish Gumbo
#134 - 2014-08-06 17:00:06 UTC
Dark Armata wrote:
Kadm wrote:
So let me ask: Is it really a bad thing if people stop using capitals to roll wormholes? How is forcing people to use battleships a big negative? Maybe you can't field ten players or ten battleships? Well, use five. You may get caught while waiting for the second pass, but a few minutes is acceptable. You should not be able to instantly and safely roll holes with them. It doesn't matter why you're rolling. You could be NOHO wanting a cap fight, or you could be a group of VOC alts running a three man expo system. Neither group should get risk free rolling. If you can't live without risk free rolling, you don't belong in WH space.


Because this means rage rolling will take SOO much longer. If you can't field the requisite number of battleships.

Also means all those battleship pilots will have to reship if something is found in the next wormhole.


If you can't field 10 battleships, it will infact take longer. Infact, if you can only field 5 battleships, it may take an entire polarization cycle! And yes, those people will need to re-ship (or, you know, fight in battleships).

What you don't seem to understand is that increasing the time and difficulty of ragerolling appears to be CCP's goal. Much like people are crying for nerfs to the ability to move through known space, CCP seems to believe that being able to cycle your static 50+ times in an evening may be excessive.
Connall Tara
Conquering Darkness
#135 - 2014-08-06 17:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
First off, the majority of changes for hyperion? AWESOME

this change? I have some significant concerns.

on face value I can see the intention behind this change. the increase of risk related to activities is always to be encouraged in my mind and that CCP is persuing this concept is most gratifying.

however there are issues here I feel i need to bring up into how this change could potentially seriously affect the nonlinear strategies which are part of what gives wormhole space it's charm.

firstly: wormhole space represents a unique area in eve where thanks to existing wormhole mechanics it's possible for smaller entities to successfully combat and defend against larger entities. a lot of this is due to the nature of wormholes and their mass and time mechanics. this additional "victory condition" creates a scenario where gurilla tactics are entirely viable and small well equipped strikes can engage a numerically superior force and thanks to the "choke-point" of a wormhole engineer a situation where they can emerge victorious. one of the reasons for this situation is that wormholes almost create a "point buy" mechanism within eve. where a smaller number of players can make use of larger ships (in this case battleships and capitals) in order to overcome the lack of individual player numbers. conversely, larger groups have to decide if they want to deploy the larger, more powerful ships, or leverage their numerical superiority with a bigger group of smaller vessels.

now the big issue I worry about here is that this change would punish the players who choose to deploy the smaller force. while the ships are individually more powerful (and as a result more expensive) they suffer from the tactical limitations of having less players behind each ship. capitals for example are very vulnerable to a dedicated T3 force within wormhole space and due to mass restrictions and mass amounts will often only be lightly escorted within the target wormhole for fear of being counter jumped and trapped within. is this a risk? most certainly and it's one that many wormhole corporations ALREADY take extremely seriously.

so how do i see this change as potentially negative? primarily my worry is that this change heavily favors the force which can deploy more pilots. larger entities can field significantly more "expendable" hulls for the task (plated battleships would be the obvious option) and would, no doubt, overcome this change by the simple application of more pilots to negate the wormhole polarization mechanic.

much in the same way that null-sec suffers from disproportionately large groups and alliances I would fear that this change would force serious wormhole entities to follow the same methodology lest they find them selves at a significant disadvantage. quite simply larger groups will negate this change through the application of numbers leaving only the smaller entities to actually be affected.

secondly: I am also somewhat concerned in regards to how this change somewhat conflicts with the overall theme of the rest of hyperion. most of the changes have quite clearly been designed in such a way to encourage movement between wormholes. the introductions of secondary statics for C4's being an excellent example. similarly the new frigate microholes are an excellent way to encourage people to move quickly and more often between spaces.

this change however, with the intention of slowing down "rage rolling" seems contradictory in my mind. on one hand the majority of changes encourage activity and connectivity within wormhole space. while this second change would necessitate players expending significantly more effort in creating new connections. slowing down exploration for the higher end wormhole entities without the numbers to reliably chain collapse (something I don't Believe larger groups won't have an issue with as previously mentioned).

more thoughts later on as the conversation develops :)

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"

Aender Wiggin
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#136 - 2014-08-06 17:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aender Wiggin
Kim Briggs wrote:
I realy like the change, that higher mass ships spawn further away from the wh.

In the current state it is nearly impossible to get a fight with wh residence, if they are active and don't want to fight.
I face this situation on a nearly daily base, that i scan a wh, scout it, form a fleet, suddenly caps appear on my side and 5 sec later the wh is gone.
That is a risk free method to avoid any unwanted contact and should be gone



Good change CCP!


And you are under the impression that if it becomes too risky people will still do it? I sugest you put yourself in their shoes and think again. Players adapt in may different ways and becoming totally passive (possing up, logging in an empire alt and mining etc.) is one such way. Verry bad for the future of WH space.

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

na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
#137 - 2014-08-06 17:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: na'Vi Ronuken
CCP Lebowski wrote:
As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release.


Can you tell the dudes sitting in your building that this is a bad change and we don't want it. or better yet -- ask him/her to start reading this thread to understand the public sentiment behind this and that we think he/she has a bad vision?
Arestris
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2014-08-06 17:03:21 UTC
biz Antollare wrote:
Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.

I love all the other changes being proposed.

However this one needs to be scratched.

Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there.


Your'e wrong! I think it's more like 99% of all people who read the devblog agree to the change und see absolutly no reason to post here. Such a reason have mostly the people who doesn't like the change.
Thats the mainreason Topics like this looks like nearly everyone doesn't like the change.
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
#139 - 2014-08-06 17:05:20 UTC
Arestris wrote:
biz Antollare wrote:
Well there you have it CCP. 99% of people who care enough about this change to post here all agree that this change is not in the best interests of its dwellers or in the future of wormholes. I'm pretty sure you got that idea from previous threads about this subject also.

I love all the other changes being proposed.

However this one needs to be scratched.

Sadly I suspect that even with all the numerous complaints and criticism about this change, CCP will do what it wants instead of listening to the people who live there.


Your'e wrong! I think it's more like 99% of all people who read the devblog agree to the change und see absolutly no reason to post here. Such a reason have mostly the people who doesn't like the change.
Thats the mainreason Topics like this looks like nearly everyone doesn't like the change.

Nice spin.
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers
#140 - 2014-08-06 17:07:50 UTC
Aender Wiggin wrote:


And you are under the impression that if it becomes too risky people will still do it? I sugest you put yourself in their shoes and think again. Players adapt in may different ways and becoming totally passive (possing up, logging in an empire alt and mining etc.) is one such way. Verry bad for the future of WH space.


but it would make Wormholes just like Null sec, which is after all the eve endgame....

/sarcasm off/