These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Traba Regina
Serene Vendetta
#201 - 2014-08-06 18:06:39 UTC
My initial impressions? well im pretty happy with the initial ideas you have proposed here, a few things probably need looking at.

k162's not spawning till you jump in:

this is better i like it alot, my concern would be the reduction in k space connections due to null bears and hisec fairies seeing its a c5 and warping elsewhere instead of jumping in, thus not opening the K162--

-- possibly add a timer/ delayed trigger to them opening?

The mass affecting spawn after entering a WH-- I like this idea in theory as it adds 'randomness and unknown' but i dislike the idea of risking a cap jumping and been very likely to be splattered! for the biggest (most organised) entities they will work around this by dropping a support fleet to scare any would be 'Chancers' but for small entities they will just not risk a cap tbh.

the wondering regenerating frigs only hole,

Id like to think that maybe this is groundwork for a future T3 frigate maybe, but i dont really get this for the higher class wh's unless brave newbies are going drop there fleets into them all the time i guess..

for the lower class wh's maybe this would be a decent content driver im unsure.


the effects particularly making use of a black hole.. well it had to be missiles bonus really lets face it :) im happy about it, looking forward to testing some of the mordus ships i still haven't found a reason to buy.. maybe this is a reason to buy one!

Overall im happy, fell a little cheated on the alliance Bm side... but hey your working on the whole corp/alliance roles system atm right? right? Cool

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5171792#post5171792
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#202 - 2014-08-06 18:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Griznatch
Querns wrote:
Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote:
Querns wrote:
Additionally, it is amusing to see the vast fields of entitlement permeating this thread -- everyone seems to believe that being able to close your wormholes, to control who gets in and out is some sort of right. Have you considered that, perhaps, it isn't actually your right to be able to control your systems in such a manner? Certainly, no one else in eve enjoys such privileges, especially since the advent of the interdiction nullified interceptor.

I agree that it was definitely nice to be able to "pick your neighbors" in such a fashion, but I also agree that it was probably not the design intent of the space, and that CCP is both well within its rights to hamper it, and is probably correct in believing that it is necessary.

It's more complex than you are thinking. It can be used to limit contact. Or can be used for the opposite purpose.
WH rolling is sort of like cynoing, in that it expands your mobility and connectivity. And closing them and keeping them closed is sort of like cyno jamming. Except that analogy isn't accurate either, since you don't have to anchor jammers in the teeth of, and under fire from, an invading force.

Now I personally feel that null was better when you had only one or two routes to HS with no cynos or bridges, and that WH's were better before everyone started realizing you could control holes. Better for me, anyway, but I can see arguments for both sides certainly depending on what the player likes to do.

But I think if you are comparing WH's to gates, you aren't understanding the topic. It's not just about security, it's also about access to content, aggression... All of it. It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who does't live by it every day, no offense.

No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out.



About consuming resources far afield, if our home hole is out of sites to run, or isnt currently occupied by a roaming gang, going to another system to find content is neccesary. If my home hole is used up and empty, the holes we're connected to are used up, and empty, and getting a connection to a new hole is a huge pain and/or cost, what precisely are we supposed to do? We log out and play a different game or watch TV. I don't consider that a valid option. The ability to roll a hole to a new place is crucial to wormhole life for several reasons, reducing that means more bored wormholers that have nothing to log in for. How does one create content in eve when you're playing Leage and watching GoT?

I used to have a clever sig but I lost it.
Rook Mallard
Aperture Harmonics
#203 - 2014-08-06 18:08:23 UTC
This is a bad design idea.
Let's go back to basics:

1. WH space relies on connections to generate interactions, the more connections the more interactions
2. The more you can modify those connections (closing/opening holes) the more exiting interactions you can generate

A couple of examples:

- You want to get to HS (need fuel/update clone/buy ship/move loot out), you collapse your static cause it leads to null and start scanning again the new chain with the hopes of getting a HS exit.
- You want to PvP in empire, you collapse your chain because there were no null sec exits in the current one.


This change makes closing those connections riskier and more tedious and time consuming.

It will result in people simply not collapsing holes because it is a pain (takes longer to cycle holes) or too risky for them at that time (lack of people online).

This will make the landscape more stagnant, meaning less content for us to do in WHs.
Please reconsider.
Missy Bunnz
Shadow Legion X
Seriously Suspicious
#204 - 2014-08-06 18:10:05 UTC
Your stated intentions are better met by other mechanics that do not cause the side effects that this proposed change causes.

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.


If your intentions are as stated, then you need to rework the change proposed immensely as the opportunity cost of what you are doing is very detrimental. Yes, we'll all adjust and adapt, but it will DECREASE player interaction, not increase it.

Instead of adjusting the distance you land on the other side (and all the problems that causes), implement a "mass timer" that affects the ability to transit the same wormhole. A > B with a frigate, you can jump B > A after 15 seconds, for example. Then A > B again is affected by polarity. This allows you to NOT adjust the positioning of fleets who are jumping but still deliver the "stuck for a while" to force engagements. A carrier could be stuck for as long as 4 minutes on the jump B>A after jumping A>B for example. The numbers can be played with to deliver the delay you want.

You could also do mass not based on individual ships but on traffic through in a particular amount of time, so a large t3 fleet that puts 1b mass on the WH, the individual elements can't jump back for as long as if they were a carrier.
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#205 - 2014-08-06 18:10:55 UTC
Alternate proposal: Keep "default" jumping behavior the same. Introduce low-HP anchorable that causes the jump-distance effect. Make it a Sansha tech that drops from incursions (they uses WHs) or a w-space only drop from data/relic sites to make them a little more worth our while. Rewards people for being attentive if they want to stop someone from rolling, leaves an option for a smaller group to punch in long enough to take down a low-HP thing and then roll. Gives people something to fight over.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#206 - 2014-08-06 18:11:18 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.


Waaaaaaaaaa risk. WH space is supposed to be nail biting. If you can't handle it, log out.
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#207 - 2014-08-06 18:13:31 UTC
Since i am no wh dweller, is it the rolling of interconnected holes that you guys are upset with, or also the connections to regular space, like null?

Cause from the null sec point as fc i hate when fights end with the jumping of caps and the level of security they do it with. If i go through a gate in null i risk everything at spawn distance, in the case of regional gates a ***** on logi with a damp on em.

Th rolling of interconnected whs i dont know thr pro s and cons, can wh people share some info on if its both?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#208 - 2014-08-06 18:13:40 UTC
Griznatch wrote:
Querns wrote:

No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out.



About consuming resources far afield, if our home hole is out of sites to run, or isnt currently occupied by a roaming gang, going to another system to find content is neccesary. If my home hole is used up and empty, the holes we're connected to are used up, and empty, and getting a connection to a new hole is a huge pain and/or cost, what precisely are we supposed to do? We log out and play a different game or watch TV. I don't consider that a valid option. The ability to roll a hole to a new place is crucial to wormhole life for several reasons, reducing that means more bored wormholers that have nothing to log in for. How does one create content in eve when you're playing Leage and watching GoT?

It's sort of a chicken and egg problem here, I agree -- the use of intentional mass exhaustion allows a single WH dweller group to grow a lot bigger. This means that this larger group then requires the large amount of content that they currently consume to remain engaged. However, it's not up to CCP to necessarily maintain this status quo; attrition of larger groups via this mechanic may indeed be a portion of their goal being served by this change. Of course, I don't actually know; that's just conjecture on my part.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Mindraak
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2014-08-06 18:14:28 UTC
I'm just gonna quote this coz that is exactly what i think.

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.

EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be inversely proportional to mass (higher mass=close) and directly proportional to maximum speed (higher maximum speed = further away).
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#210 - 2014-08-06 18:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Querns wrote:
Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote:
Querns wrote:
Additionally, it is amusing to see the vast fields of entitlement permeating this thread -- everyone seems to believe that being able to close your wormholes, to control who gets in and out is some sort of right. Have you considered that, perhaps, it isn't actually your right to be able to control your systems in such a manner? Certainly, no one else in eve enjoys such privileges, especially since the advent of the interdiction nullified interceptor.

I agree that it was definitely nice to be able to "pick your neighbors" in such a fashion, but I also agree that it was probably not the design intent of the space, and that CCP is both well within its rights to hamper it, and is probably correct in believing that it is necessary.

It's more complex than you are thinking. It can be used to limit contact. Or can be used for the opposite purpose.
WH rolling is sort of like cynoing, in that it expands your mobility and connectivity. And closing them and keeping them closed is sort of like cyno jamming. Except that analogy isn't accurate either, since you don't have to anchor jammers in the teeth of, and under fire from, an invading force.

Now I personally feel that null was better when you had only one or two routes to HS with no cynos or bridges, and that WH's were better before everyone started realizing you could control holes. Better for me, anyway, but I can see arguments for both sides certainly depending on what the player likes to do.

But I think if you are comparing WH's to gates, you aren't understanding the topic. It's not just about security, it's also about access to content, aggression... All of it. It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who does't live by it every day, no offense.

No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out.


No that is really not the way it works, you are using Kspace experience and extrapolating, It really does not work this way at all. Holes are mainly rolled to provide interesting contact or a better route, there is ALWAYS something in the chain if you want PvE, however, if the chain leads to a major PVP corp and you are a C3 dweller, security is a sensible consideration.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Traba Regina
Serene Vendetta
#211 - 2014-08-06 18:15:46 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Since i am no wh dweller, is it the rolling of interconnected holes that you guys are upset with, or also the connections to regular space, like null?

Cause from the null sec point as fc i hate when fights end with the jumping of caps and the level of security they do it with. If i go through a gate in null i risk everything at spawn distance, in the case of regional gates a ***** on logi with a damp on em.

Th rolling of interconnected whs i dont know thr pro s and cons, can wh people share some info on if its both?



i dont think anyone is upset about any kspace, its the wh-wh connections where the exponential risk would lay.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5171792#post5171792
Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2014-08-06 18:15:47 UTC
If you want more fights, make people spawn CLOSER to the hole, not further away from it. Specifically, within 2000m so they can't immediately cloak up. Everyone jumping at any point becomes vulnerable until they get away from the hole, including scouts. Scouting is the ONE thing that is currently "too safe" in w-space, since it is nigh-impossible to catch a lone covops jumping through a hole.

Take away that insta-cloak ability and you'll get a lot more small-scale fights (good thing), you'll increase the risk for every single jump through a wormhole (good thing), and you can skip the whole arbitrary mass/distance relationship thing.
Snakes-On-A-Plane
#213 - 2014-08-06 18:16:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Snakes-On-A-Plane
Querns wrote:

No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out.

Resource usage and competition for resources has little impact on j-space. The concern can pop up on occasions, but it's not a major driver in activity. Most movement in wormholes is PvPers seeking targets, or players seeking logistical routes (to connect to allies or k-space). This has been the case even before the community at large learned to roll holes effectively.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2014-08-06 18:17:08 UTC
Theoretically, riskier hole rolling may mean there are more connections remaining open if you can't insta-roll it or otherwise view it as too dangerous. On the other hand, K162's not showing up until someone jumps through could mean some connections remain closed.

Critically, though, active systems are the ones we want into. It's already quite easy not to open K162's from a populated, active system, but now it's riskier and more time consuming to close connections from an active system. I don't think people want to roam empty connections, they want to find connections to active systems.

Right now, people can break themselves from the network at will and chain rolling is the only way to force your way into an active system that closed its connections.

The frigate holes, the delayed K162, and an aversion to closure via caps could mean it's not as easy to isolate oneself. I think if the design goal is to reduce isolation, then cool, let's work from there.

Caps landing out of refit range is bad for bigger groups right now. Small scale cap warfare is most realistic in W-Space right now, so that needs to survive.
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#215 - 2014-08-06 18:17:23 UTC
Querns wrote:
Griznatch wrote:
Querns wrote:

No -- I get it -- intentional wormhole mass exhaustion is also used to find PvP content. However, I'm still adamant in my assertion that it's PvE's use of the mechanic that causes it to also be "necessary" for PvP. Mass exhaustion's ability to allow a wormhole organization to consume resources far afield of their "home" drives out a large number of potential wormhole dwellers by starving them out.



About consuming resources far afield, if our home hole is out of sites to run, or isnt currently occupied by a roaming gang, going to another system to find content is neccesary. If my home hole is used up and empty, the holes we're connected to are used up, and empty, and getting a connection to a new hole is a huge pain and/or cost, what precisely are we supposed to do? We log out and play a different game or watch TV. I don't consider that a valid option. The ability to roll a hole to a new place is crucial to wormhole life for several reasons, reducing that means more bored wormholers that have nothing to log in for. How does one create content in eve when you're playing Leage and watching GoT?

It's sort of a chicken and egg problem here, I agree -- the use of intentional mass exhaustion allows a single WH dweller group to grow a lot bigger. This means that this larger group then requires the large amount of content that they currently consume to remain engaged. However, it's not up to CCP to necessarily maintain this status quo; attrition of larger groups via this mechanic may indeed be a portion of their goal being served by this change. Of course, I don't actually know; that's just conjecture on my part.



It's not about wormhole corps getting bigger. My dozen strong corp can wipe out all our sites and be left with nothing to do but PI in a very short peiod of time. A single wormhole system cant support even a small groups desire for content. Unless the amount of per-hole content goes up dramatically, the need to visit other holes regularly won't go away. Making it more difficult to visit other holes just makes the problem worse.

I used to have a clever sig but I lost it.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#216 - 2014-08-06 18:17:50 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Since i am no wh dweller, is it the rolling of interconnected holes that you guys are upset with, or also the connections to regular space, like null?

Cause from the null sec point as fc i hate when fights end with the jumping of caps and the level of security they do it with. If i go through a gate in null i risk everything at spawn distance, in the case of regional gates a ***** on logi with a damp on em.

Th rolling of interconnected whs i dont know thr pro s and cons, can wh people share some info on if its both?


It's interconnected holes really - nobody would generally bother rolling k-space holes except the C2 k-space statics.

The annoyance is that at the minute you often end up rolling your static over and over and over to try and find a wormhole chain that has something good in it - making this process even more boring and annoying just means people will do it less, so there's less content. Additionally, people will be less willing to jump expensive cap ships into wormhole fights (which are very commonly at 0 on a wormhole) if they're going to end up spawning outside of refit range and so on, so there's less content.

Basically, it will just stop people doing things rather than solving the problem CCP are trying to sort, which is "it's too safe to roll a wormhole"
biz Antollare
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#217 - 2014-08-06 18:19:23 UTC
Here's another example of what this change will do because its happenig already...

I had a few smaller c5 corps approach me the past couple days asking me "if this really happens do you think we could move in with you?"

People are already willing to leave their hole becuse of this. Some might go to a large group, some maybe k-space. This isn't what we were trying to accomplish when we had that wormhole town hall meeting.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#218 - 2014-08-06 18:20:05 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Traba Regina wrote:
corebloodbrothers wrote:
Since i am no wh dweller, is it the rolling of interconnected holes that you guys are upset with, or also the connections to regular space, like null?

Cause from the null sec point as fc i hate when fights end with the jumping of caps and the level of security they do it with. If i go through a gate in null i risk everything at spawn distance, in the case of regional gates a ***** on logi with a damp on em.

Th rolling of interconnected whs i dont know thr pro s and cons, can wh people share some info on if its both?



i dont think anyone is upset about any kspace, its the wh-wh connections where the exponential risk would lay.


Actually jspace to null would be horrible under this mechanic too, It has NO redeeming features whatsoever.
wormholes are a very different mechanic to gates, they have significant mechanics that make them far more challenging to handle, Cynos might be a closer comparison on one sense.
How would you feel on jumping through a cyno for all the ships to be scattered throughout the grid?Question

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#219 - 2014-08-06 18:22:03 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
No that is really not the way it works, you are using Kspace experience and extrapolating, It really does not work this way at all.

Sure it is -- assuming, of course, that the "lore" behind WH anoms is true; namely, that completing a site causes it to immediately respawn in another wormhole of the same class or "region" (I've heard multiple versions.) Consider C6s -- most of these systems are populated and C6 dwellers typically report a high rate of respawn for anomalies. Compare this to C5s, which are more numerous, and often require intentional mass exhaustion to locate sites. This is a classic example of one behavior affecting the other; exhausting the wormhole mass allows you to consume the resources that are being concentrated in fallow systems by this overconsumption in the first place.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#220 - 2014-08-06 18:23:16 UTC
The more I read, the more it seems like the complaints aren't about an inability to find content, they're about the inability to find content on their own terms.

There's a whole lot of complaining that the content might find them and they can't stop it from happening, which seems somewhat hypocritical, given other statements being consistently made.

The other portion of the complaints (reps etc.) would be solved, per my other suggestion, of changing the spawn position mechanics following a jump to be based on your source position relative to the signature you jumped. Could keep logi or refitting dreads in range of their carriers, but still have the spawn distance as an element.