These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Traiori
Going Critical
#221 - 2014-08-06 18:23:26 UTC
corebloodbrothers wrote:
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.


The difference now is that fights will end before you normally saw the caps at all.

Triage archons let our smaller fleets engage your larger ones. I've been in a fair few scraps where there's been 70-100 nullsec people lying around trying to get at things, and we simply can't fight you without bringing the triage archon with us. We now can't bring that triage archon.

This might differ for groups that can field 40-50 pilots (like Hard Knocks), but certainly you'll see less engagements from the smaller groups.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#222 - 2014-08-06 18:24:36 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Querns wrote:
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.


fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#223 - 2014-08-06 18:25:00 UTC
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
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"


So what's the answer? I can't come up with a significantly better idea than what they're proposing, and the "don't change anything" is falling on deaf ears (as, IMO, it should)
Rena Senn
Halal Gunnery
#224 - 2014-08-06 18:26:04 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
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.

You can't force people to take more risk when they still have less riskier options available. If losing a hole rolling cap sucks more than losing a hole rolling battleship and is also riskier, then people will just stop using hole rolling caps unless they can make it at least as safe as it is currently to do so. That means fewer hole rolling caps in general, but the few that do end up being put to that use still not being exposed to any increased risk due to player mitigation.
Hatshepsut IV
Un.Reasonable
#225 - 2014-08-06 18:26:53 UTC
My thoughts.


First refit range, caps spawning out of refit range of carriers is an issue, one that anyone competent will capitalize against.

to quote from a conversation held elsewhere.

Axloth Okiah wrote:
[18:16:47] Axloth Okiah > those 10 extra kilometers make it no more dangerous but much more annoying and time consuming


Bumping a cap further off a hole is the as easy from 6-10k as it is from 20k minus the annoying time sink of slowboating.

By letting carriers and dreads spawn in this range you don't completely negate the ability of things to be in refit range and you still have the danger of them being out of instant jump range and therefore get bumped further out. Arbitrary timesinks are not interesting gameplay. I can get behind holerolling being a more risk intensive behavior. However making you can accomplish this without making the whole process tedious. (more then it already is)

Hole rolling is our version of roams, its w-space content search feature. Changes to increase activity and conflict are good, however changes which slowdown rolling counteracts this.

Tl;DR

Conflict good and caps being out of instant jump range sure, tedium and timeksinks bad caps being far enough to add annoying time consuming slowboating when they are already in danger is just going to decrease amount of rolling/fights found.

Public Channel | Un.Welcome
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
#226 - 2014-08-06 18:27:55 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
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"


So what's the answer? I can't come up with a significantly better idea than what they're proposing, and the "don't change anything" is falling on deaf ears (as, IMO, it should)

Longer polarization? Changing mass limits? I'm sure there are plenty of other fixes for rage rolling.
Missy Bunnz
Shadow Legion X
Seriously Suspicious
#227 - 2014-08-06 18:28:03 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
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"


So what's the answer? I can't come up with a significantly better idea than what they're proposing, and the "don't change anything" is falling on deaf ears (as, IMO, it should)



Missy Bunnz wrote:

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.


Is the answer, posted above but overrun by people trying to maintain the status quo. ;)
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#228 - 2014-08-06 18:28:16 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Querns wrote:

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.


fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible.

Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#229 - 2014-08-06 18:28:33 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
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"


So what's the answer? I can't come up with a significantly better idea than what they're proposing, and the "don't change anything" is falling on deaf ears (as, IMO, it should)

being as the idea has no merit whatsoever and is simply just something "thought" up to "shake things up" inaction is a better alternative as is probably almost anything that has some thought and understanding of wormholes.

CCP please just drop this idea and move on.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Air Cloud
The Amazing Squirrels
#230 - 2014-08-06 18:29:31 UTC
I don't want to repeat myslef let me just post my reply to another thread concerning same topic:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4884443#post4884443

it is in main thread concerning all changes in the Hyperion concerning WH space combined...
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#231 - 2014-08-06 18:30:28 UTC
Querns wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Querns wrote:

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.


fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible.

Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion.



That is true, but as it is not required, it is not the common reason to do so, there is no such thing as the Perfect PVE system, but you may be right, some may seek them, just not in my experience.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#232 - 2014-08-06 18:30:54 UTC
Rroff wrote:
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).


This is a good idea. It would be interesting if pilot action such as putting on a prop mod would cause us to spawn further out. The new spawn distance for cruisers or frigates is not far enough out to be tactically interesting.
Rena Senn
Halal Gunnery
#233 - 2014-08-06 18:31:08 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
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"


So what's the answer? I can't come up with a significantly better idea than what they're proposing, and the "don't change anything" is falling on deaf ears (as, IMO, it should)

Beat them over the head with "don't change anything" until it finally sinks in. If someone say from now on all the bread you buy is going to be marinated in rat urine, you make him stop rather than negotiate just how much rat urine he gets to use.
Dominus Alterai
Star Freaks
#234 - 2014-08-06 18:31:55 UTC
So, I'm not in w-space much anymore, but from a vets point of view I can honestly say that 90% of this change is/will be bad for w-space. I can understand that CCP would want to shake thing up, but this would most likely create further stagnation. Not only would people likely NOT commit caps to fights, but this change hinders the possibility to counter larger fleets and the possibility of retreat. Try thinking of it like flying a very tanky orca through nullsec. If you get caught, you are 100% dead.

I would think CCP would know this by now, but the vast majority of players are quite risk averse, including wormholers. As a suggestion, perhaps make the mass - distance relationship inversely instead of directly proportional, ie make large mass ships spawn closer while smaller ships spawn further.

Not only would this change have players still committing capitals to fights, but the smaller mass ships like cruisers and frigates would be hard pressed to make a retreat there by still providing valuable content. Remember, capitals cannot use emergency cynos to escape a fleet in w-space and MUST use a wormhole.

Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009.
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
#235 - 2014-08-06 18:31:55 UTC
Querns wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Querns wrote:

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.


fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible.

Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion.

Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion.
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#236 - 2014-08-06 18:33:09 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?


Mostly WH-WH mechanics. We have "static" wormholes that respawn immediately when crashed. It's how we get around, basically, and how we find things to do. This makes it much slower, riskier, and more annoying to do any of it, and makes it very easy for someone to just say "you don't get to do anything today".

Nullsec gates aren't quite the right comparison. Even in a system with only one gate, if someone camps the gate you still have alternatives (bridges, cynos). You can also summon help to clear away the camp. We just get locked into a little box where we can't do anything except sit inside our POS shields.

Here's an analogy for the inconvenience aspect: Imagine if you spawned randomly within 100km of a cyno when you jumped, instead of 5. Think of how much of a PITA it would be to move caps around. Now imagine that was the only way to go anywhere.
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#237 - 2014-08-06 18:33:32 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
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"


So what's the answer? I can't come up with a significantly better idea than what they're proposing, and the "don't change anything" is falling on deaf ears (as, IMO, it should)

being as the idea has no merit whatsoever and is simply just something "thought" up to "shake things up" inaction is a better alternative as is probably almost anything that has some thought and understanding of wormholes.

CCP please just drop this idea and move on.


Why is inaction better? If CCPs internal data suggests subscriptions are declining, and lots of folks are giving up on w-space, or purely use it for PI on alts, then a shakeup is probably what is needed.
Nys Cron
EVE University
Ivy League
#238 - 2014-08-06 18:33:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nys Cron
This will be not that big a deal for large corps as they can bring enough support to still roll safely, it will just be a bit more annoying to do. There will probably be less rolling for PvP but not that significantly.

Small corporations connected to bigger PvP entities will just not bother with trying to roll the connection but log off instead, this is already happening with lower class WHs that are more tedious to roll.

The biggest problem I have with this change is that it renders triage carriers nearly useless as the only way to have a chance of surviving a medium to large fight with triage carriers is to bring two of them and alternate siege cycles/refit. With the change these carriers will spawn up to ~40km from each other which makes these tactics impossible. Solo triage carriers usually die very quickly and are not worth bringing.
Furthermore this benefits entities that are risk averse and prefer staying in their home system even more: in addition to being able to bring nearly unlimited reinforcements and numbers of capitals, they don't have to deal with the spawn distance problem while the attackers are even more limited in what and how they bring capitals than they already are.


All in all it seems like this change would just cause less PvP to happen and make PvE more annoying and risky for small groups. I think this goes against the overall goals for the proposed changes to w-space.


/edit: i like the idea to base it on velocity when jumping that was mentioned somewhere
Hatshepsut IV
Un.Reasonable
#239 - 2014-08-06 18:33:59 UTC
Traiori wrote:
corebloodbrothers wrote:
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.


The difference now is that fights will end before you normally saw the caps at all.

Triage archons let our smaller fleets engage your larger ones. I've been in a fair few scraps where there's been 70-100 nullsec people lying around trying to get at things, and we simply can't fight you without bringing the triage archon with us. We now can't bring that triage archon.

This might differ for groups that can field 40-50 pilots (like Hard Knocks), but certainly you'll see less engagements from the smaller groups.


This is a perfect summation of this.

Public Channel | Un.Welcome
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#240 - 2014-08-06 18:35:20 UTC
Janice en Marland wrote:
Querns wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Querns wrote:

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.


fortunately the resources are not so "limited" so as to have been all consumed by others. Possibly due to the fact that wormhole groups tend to operate on a smaller scale, whilst one may exhaust ones own holes resources by over consuming, I have never found a chain with no resources. In something like a c4 with static c4 that may of course be possible.

Sure, but that's because you can cast your net over a much wider area with the use of mass exhaustion.

Adding mineable moons would probably prevent mass exhaustion.

Are you really prepared to operate multiple POS in a system solely for mining moons without using mass exhaustion to open up logistics routes for the ice you need to fuel those towers and move moongoo to market? :V

(contrivance ahoy)

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