These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
biz Antollare
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#261 - 2014-08-06 18:54:05 UTC
This thread isn't for suggestions ... Its for feedback on the current proposed change.
ChaseTheLasers
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#262 - 2014-08-06 18:54:33 UTC
I'd like to know the average number of pilots in an active WH system. I know a lot of corps are the 'smaller' guys who got sick of nullsec. I'd bet the number of average pilots is quite small in a system.

The throwing distance is going to hit some of these I think then it comes to using caps. I'm interested to see how the change pans out, but it's quite a few of them together. You need to keep in mind that rolling is done because people *want* PvP most of the time.

I'd much rather see a cap jump through, be like it is now, but have a 'destabilising' factor which means it can't jump for another minute or so if anything. Smaller ships, like frigs, should be able to jump back right away like the mechanics allow now.
This encourages the 'send a scout' mentality before committing larger ships. Scale it with ship size, if needed.

Heck, there are entirely different methods you could use. What about WH jumping eating into cap? Again, scale it with ship size. A frig only gets hit for 10% cap use. A capital uses 80% (or whatever) of its cap jumping. All of a sudden the capital has to replenish cap before jumping back again. If it gets attacked it's not in a great situation and could quickly give the rollers a serious issue, even with a limited number of people attacking it. A Bhaalgorn is really going to ruin a rollers day if it landed on grid while it's charging its cap.
Now the rollers need to commit a fleet to save it or it dies.

Not that I'm a fan of the idea overall currently, I'm just trying to think of less bad alternatives (and probably failing). I'll see how it plays out.
a51 himself
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#263 - 2014-08-06 18:55:52 UTC
gues, just a NO will be sufficient after all the coments
MyrddinBishop
NOMADS.
#264 - 2014-08-06 18:57:21 UTC
I originally took interest to this topic when the EVE-O and Reddit posts went up following the discovery on SISI. I decided that there would be no point to attempt to provide feedback until CCP rolled out the DEV Blog and the appropriate thread was started. After reading the DEV Blog and taking a look at the communities response I figured now would be as good of a time as any to weigh in.

At first glance this seems like it would be a good change. If current rolling behavior remained the same post-patch then it would result in more capital ganks and farmers removed from their carebear dreads and carrier in glorious violence. However, this is unlikely to be the case.

Farmers by their very nature are risk adverse. They would rather log off than risk handing over any killmails to potential hostiles. So in attempting to increase the risk of capital rolling, in fact this change is decreasing our chances of catching rolling forces closer to zero than it already is, as the targets would opt to log off. As it is, we do have options at our disposal to catch rolling capitals, it just requires some advance preparation.

I think capital brawls on the wormhole also need to be looked at. This is the bread and butter of high class wormhole life. This is why I as well as many of the other notable entities that live in C5 and C6 space choose to live in a hostile environment. Now dealing with the dynamic of spreading capitals upon spawning on the far side of the Wormhole sounds interesting and I am generally in support of a shakeup. The problem is the new dynamic puts the advantage square on those on the defending side of the wormhole. Currently, it is really quite difficult to take the upper hand in a brawl in another entities home. One method is close proximity Carrier placement to allow combat refitting that extends the survivability of the aggressing capitals. With long range spawns this is no longer viable and in fact a potential of spawning capitals 40km away from each other makes them so much more vulnerable. While the defending force is free to place their capitals in a manor that is completely favorable to a winning outcome. So really it shifts the advantage even more so than it already is to an entrenched Wormhole entity.

I feel like that the proposed change may become more viable if a more subtle approach was taken. One that doesn't necessarily eliminate some of the major current metas in use in Wormhole space and adds the more dynamic interaction that CCP is looking for out of this change. Personally I would be more in support of this change if the maximum Capital spawn distance is reduced from the current proposal. Really all that is needed is for the capital to spawn just out of jump range. Somewhere on the order of 7.5km would be fine with me. This would be just far enough away that under webs and bumping the capital could be held away from the wormhole until a backup gank force could arrive. It would also give the tackled Capital a short window of time to counter the tackle by giving them a chance to make the Wormhole and jump back. It would be a much more even playing field for both Attacker and Defender. It would also be close enough that the farmers would feel safe enough to attempt rolling possibly even in hostile situations. This would also put the spawns of capitals close enough together that there would actually be a chance of slowboating closer together in the middle of combat. It would still decrease the incidence of triage carriers jumping straight back after exiting a single cycle as they won't be able to move closer to the wormhole while in triage.

Reading some of the feedback of this thread I have heard a couple times of the proposal that velocity should influence spawn distance on the other side. I would be in support of a change like this. It would increase the viability of kiting fleet in Wormhole space. As it is currently the only meta is Armor Brawling fleets as nearly every fight occurs at zero on the Wormhole. With a change like this a nano fleet could MWD into a Wormhole, jump and spawn at a range that would support kiting. A change like this would add a much needed dynamic to Wormhole space. Much more so than changing the spawn distance that is currently proposed.

So in the end, this change seems to favor the bigger entities and hurt the little guy even more and decrease the likelihood of engagements with other entities in Wormhole space rather than increase them. Please review this specific change, CCP, and tweak it until it achieves the desired outcome, not move us further away from it. Thanks.
Missy Bunnz
Shadow Legion X
Seriously Suspicious
#265 - 2014-08-06 18:57:33 UTC
a51 himself wrote:
gues, just a NO will be sufficient after all the coments


How often does a "No" ever work?

Be realistic. They want to decrease the safety of rolling wormholes. Its going to happen. Make it have as few unintended side effects as possible. Spawn distance is not the way. Time to re-jump is.
Sanuki Sukuuvestaa
State War Academy
Caldari State
#266 - 2014-08-06 18:58:11 UTC
Dont think this is going to change much tbh.. So everyone that jumps in first with a covert ops to scout the new connection have that scout mwd 200 above and act as a ping for the capitals coming in, followed by a webloki to nullify the intentions of forcing the cap to "be on grid" long enough for the attacker to respond. This is basically a "Im forcing you to warp twice"-mechanic, and doubtful to be someone stupid enough to slowboat back to the hole for 3,5-4,5 minutes in a dread :P

If the idea is to have the caps be vurnerable for a response, then i think a better option would be that once a cap enters a hole, the amount of mass passing throught it makes it "unstable" for a short amount of time, denying the first or any other capital to jump the hole.. Much like a global but shorter polarized-timer that is shared both ways of the jump. Maybe even make it so nobody can jump for 30 sec or whatever, denying a reinforcement-jump if said capital does get in trouble. I dont know, just a random idea, but just saying i don't think the distance will really effect anything since its so easily avoided by pings+web+warp.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#267 - 2014-08-06 18:59:39 UTC
Querns wrote:
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.



Oh my - this IS rich coming from where it does. Let's remove some of the NIMBY double-speak

Limiting the rapacity (good vocab by the way - I approve) that established parties (hmmmm who might these be) can consume resources far afield of what they are able to control, allowing more parties to enter space in general. All in all a good change for the health of the game.....

You don't say. Limiting established parties. More parties in space in general.

Huh, that's a novel concept you've got there. You might be on to something.

I'm right behind you
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#268 - 2014-08-06 19:00:04 UTC
Dominus Alterai wrote:

You do realize the point of rage rolling is, 99% of the time, for pvp? Having it rolled with three guys while the rest of the fleet is ready in combat ships is how it's usually done...


I thought the point was to look for weaker targets that you can face-roll or make log out. But yeah, I guess you can call that pvp.

Heavens forbid if there was any actual risk to it.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#269 - 2014-08-06 19:00:49 UTC
So, I've read through a good portion of this thread.

I understand what CCP is going for here, and I definitely echo Nash McAllister's thoughts on why its bad:

Nash MacAllister wrote:
I believe, based on what I have read/seen, that this will be a boon for folks like ourselves with a HS static or fighting on HS wormholes in general. I for one look forward to folks jumping in and winding up 20km (or whatever) off the HS. Now their "HS games" may have very real consequences, as it should be.

My first concern is on the wh to wh connectors (all classes). Depending on the final code, anything larger than a BS becomes very risky and unfortunately it hits the smaller wh groups far harder that the larger and more well-established ones due to their inability to provide real security in the form of combat ship support while the Orca motors back to jump. While risk should be present, the way this looks like it will be implemented will, IMHO, drive the smaller groups away from w-space as they will not be able to roll for connections as easily. This limits their availability of sites to run, provide for home wh defense (rolling off aggressors), find routes to be used for basic wh logistical purposes (loot, fuel, etc.), or obtain new chains to explore.

Where I find the most potentially critical issue is in the C5/C6 connectors and the transit of cap ships. While it is fairly rare to see people fight on their static as it is, I believe the risk of having your caps end up somewhere far outside the refit range or even rep range (TBD) of your support could seriously and further limit the occurrence of such fights.

If I had to whittle this down into a main statement this is what I would say: CCP, I would suggest that the majority of us roll to look for "content", not run from it. By making it far more risky to roll wh in almost all situations, and heavily favoring large and well-equipped corporations over the smaller and less-experienced ones, you virtually guarantee a significant reduction in attempts to ever gain a foothold in w-space by new entities because it simply isn't worth the risk or effort. I believe this proposed change in any form near where it currently sits pushes the player base in the opposite direction than should be, and will have a detrimental effect on w-space as a whole.


Essentially, its an interesting concept, and while I do really like the idea of being far away from the wormhole and such like that, I feel as if this ends up being a relatively poor way to implement it. There's also the suggestion of an inverse relationship to mass, thus that lighter ships end up further away. While I feel this is interesting, I almost feel as if it is not enough. It won't really shake things up all that much.

Thus, I actually had a really interesting thought. If CCP really wants to add a weird twist to wormhole space, something you don't find anywhere else, then do this: give wormholes specific entrances and exits. Make them one way. Instead of having a B274 highsec static, you have the W-space to K-space connection, and then K-space to W-space connection. These could be A) on grid from each other, at variable distances depending on hole type, system class, and the like. B) off grid of each other, having to each be scanned down separately. Either way, the mass and the mass limitations could still be tied together. Its still one 'connection' as it were, its just that the exit point and the entrance point are displaced from each other. This effectively turns the transit into a big loop. Rage rolling can still happen quickly, just complete once circuit. However, it means when you jump into a wormhole, the place you come out on the other side will not have a wormhole there, you will have to warp to it/slowboat towards it.

This accomplishes the objective of preventing someone who jumps through a hole from instantly bugging out back through it, and adds a sort of dynamic action that doesn't have a direct comparison in K-space.

Anyway, just a suggestion. I understand what CCP is trying to do, and I appreciate their trying to do it, but I don't really think this is the best way. I look at the distance stats as related to mass on the dev-blog and just think 'this looks wrong, there should be a better way to do this'


Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Admiral Douros
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2014-08-06 19:01:04 UTC
Edgar Strangelove wrote:
I ask that you consider the first part of the devblog. Our peculiar little civilization sprung up around the ability to manipulate wormholes the way we do. The fact that we can go looking for fights, looking for PvE, or looking for good connections to k-space to do logistics has informed how we have built our entire infrastructure. The fact that we can let people be trapped in hostile systems and chainroll to get them back influences how we interact with other corporations. The fact that everyone gets dumped on top of each other within jump range is what makes the polarization timer so relevant. The ability to drastically change the environment mid-fight, either to split up a fleet or cut off reinforcements, means that everyone involved has to try to be watching everywhere all at once.

Another thing to consider is that wormhole space uses capitals differently. They're the biggest and baddest asset we can take to a fight, and they get blinged out like supercaps in k-space. Capitals jump into a fight and slam triage/siege. They can't jump in triage or siege anyway. Their support fleet will be mostly cruiser sized. This scattering spreads people out and means that whoever your fleet is jumping into has the positioning advantage from the start. Sure, it's interesting to think of calling a fight where you space people out by distance and have them tackle whoever spawns right next to them, but thinking of being the fleet jumping into that snare over and over again is much less appealing. There's a reason that you don't always jump on contact: because you don't always want to send people in piecemeal and let them get spread out without having all the information.

The change you want to make to K162 spawning will do plenty to alter the environment in favor of giving hunting players more time undetected by their prey. You can't crash a wormhole that you can't detect yet. If a K162 signature doesn't spawn until someone has transited it, then whoever is on the hunt has a lot more lead time. If nothing else, they'll always beat the occupants of the destination system to the hole.

Wormhole collapsing and spawning mechanics are what we live around. Dead time bouncing capitals off of planets to chainroll faster is boring. Doing the things we chainroll to find or enable is fun. Hiding in a POS because there's a 50 person fleet at your door and you only have 10 is boring. Slamming the door in their faces and finding something fun to do with those 10 people -- like, say, hunting for a fleet closer to our own size -- is a much better use of our time. We might risk committing capitals to speed crash even if there is a hostile fleet on the other side, or even to tempt them into jumpin. We won't do that if the capital lands 20k off the hole on the far side.


I agree with all of this. All this change does is makes crashing uncontested holes more boring, makes people less likely to use capitals to crash holes, and discourages jumping capitals through holes for PVP due to not being anywhere within refit range. These all have the same consequence: more people will get bored of WH space and leave/unsub. This change combined with the new practically-uncrashable wormholes will lead to smaller corps not leaving their POS a lot of the time.
Mindraak
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#271 - 2014-08-06 19:01:55 UTC
ChaseTheLasers wrote:
Heck, there are entirely different methods you could use. What about WH jumping eating into cap? Again, scale it with ship size. A frig only gets hit for 10% cap use. A capital uses 80% (or whatever) of its cap jumping. All of a sudden the capital has to replenish cap before jumping back again. If it gets attacked it's not in a great situation and could quickly give the rollers a serious issue, even with a limited number of people attacking it. A Bhaalgorn is really going to ruin a rollers day if it landed on grid while it's charging its cap.
Now the rollers need to commit a fleet to save it or it dies.


this is the same bad idea just using a diferent method. a small corp will not commit a cap or an orca because of the enormous risk of loosing it, therefore it will be imposible for them to roll WHs and big corps will loose the ability to roll quickly enough.
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
#272 - 2014-08-06 19:06:23 UTC
I think the "small ship" wormholes will do a lot to benefit smaller groups, particularly in low-class space, who do not have the ISK or support composition needed to field larger ships. Especially if one gets frequent connections to nullsec, where the same small ships that pass through the hole are able to take on the profession sites (data, relic, gas, etc).

How is this relevant to the mass-based spawn distance? Because a lot of people have criticized the changes as hurting smaller groups. In my experience if a group is too small to field a support fleet for rolling Orcas they will simply not roll their hole when confronted by a larger group. Hell, even a scary looking solo Sabre can make some corps freeze up and second-guess rolling the hole Twisted. With that in mind I think it's important to recognize how these smaller groups might find or generate content: by scouting and scanning more in fast, agile ships. Thus the mass-based spawn changes are great additions so long as CCP continues to provide light ship content for wormhole space, which has traditionally been very lacking but is getting better and will benefit smaller groups.

I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way.

Destination Unreachable: the worst Wspace blog ever
ChaseTheLasers
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
#273 - 2014-08-06 19:06:51 UTC
Mindraak wrote:
ChaseTheLasers wrote:
Heck, there are entirely different methods you could use. What about WH jumping eating into cap? Again, scale it with ship size. A frig only gets hit for 10% cap use. A capital uses 80% (or whatever) of its cap jumping. All of a sudden the capital has to replenish cap before jumping back again. If it gets attacked it's not in a great situation and could quickly give the rollers a serious issue, even with a limited number of people attacking it. A Bhaalgorn is really going to ruin a rollers day if it landed on grid while it's charging its cap.
Now the rollers need to commit a fleet to save it or it dies.


this is the same bad idea just using a diferent method. a small corp will not commit a cap or an orca because of the enormous risk of loosing it, therefore it will be imposible for them to roll WHs and big corps will loose the ability to roll quickly enough.


I don't disagree. I just hate the idea of distance if a change happens.
Snakes-On-A-Plane
#274 - 2014-08-06 19:07:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Snakes-On-A-Plane
Saede Riordan wrote:
Thus, I actually had a really interesting thought. If CCP really wants to add a weird twist to wormhole space, something you don't find anywhere else, then do this: give wormholes specific entrances and exits. Make them one way. Instead of having a B274 highsec static, you have the W-space to K-space connection, and then K-space to W-space connection. These could be A) on grid from each other, at variable distances depending on hole type, system class, and the like. B) off grid of each other, having to each be scanned down separately. Either way, the mass and the mass limitations could still be tied together. Its still one 'connection' as it were, its just that the exit point and the entrance point are displaced from each other. This effectively turns the transit into a big loop. Rage rolling can still happen quickly, just complete once circuit. However, it means when you jump into a wormhole, the place you come out on the other side will not have a wormhole there, you will have to warp to it/slowboat towards it.

This accomplishes the objective of preventing someone who jumps through a hole from instantly bugging out back through it, and adds a sort of dynamic action that doesn't have a direct comparison in K-space.

I haven't thought it through fully, and there might be lots of arguments against, but I think that this idea merits further expansion.

In essence, every invading fleet is forced to go all in. This would increase risk significantly.

Very interesting.

It still doesn't change smaller groups from pos-hugging rather than trying to combat roll. But that's not a huge deal.
Nys Cron
EVE University
Ivy League
#275 - 2014-08-06 19:07:53 UTC
ChaseTheLasers wrote:
Heck, there are entirely different methods you could use. What about WH jumping eating into cap? Again, scale it with ship size. A frig only gets hit for 10% cap use. A capital uses 80% (or whatever) of its cap jumping. All of a sudden the capital has to replenish cap before jumping back again. If it gets attacked it's not in a great situation and could quickly give the rollers a serious issue, even with a limited number of people attacking it. A Bhaalgorn is really going to ruin a rollers day if it landed on grid while it's charging its cap.
Now the rollers need to commit a fleet to save it or it dies.

This makes it nearly impossible to bring capitals more than one jump out of your home and thus discourages PvP.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#276 - 2014-08-06 19:10:20 UTC
Kadm wrote:
Dark Armata wrote:
[quote=Kadm]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.
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.


Yeah so about those "cries to nerf the ability to move though kspace". It stands to reason that CCP hears those cries about kspace (the most populous part of space with the most egregious means of mass distance teleportation transportation available) and decides to instead alter (or insert your own pejorative) a means of content generation employed by the smallest group of pilots in New Eden. One which has literally zero impact on the larger issue of kspace "distance mitigation" and so completely irrelevant to it. And choosing not to act on those kspace concerns in the process. All at the same time they they add additional methods via module to further reduce the cost/burden of said "distance mitigation".

I can totally see the corollary and adjacent concerns about jumping a wh in wspace and cyno'ing clear across the universe. In fact based on other calculations by Marlona (and others) that cyno trip across the Universe takes about 10 minutes. Which is about as long as it'll take a wh group to cycle two connections. Totally balanced and comparable. GJ
/sarcasm

I'm right behind you
Dominus Alterai
Star Freaks
#277 - 2014-08-06 19:12:28 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Dominus Alterai wrote:

You do realize the point of rage rolling is, 99% of the time, for pvp? Having it rolled with three guys while the rest of the fleet is ready in combat ships is how it's usually done...


I thought the point was to look for weaker targets that you can face-roll or make log out. But yeah, I guess you can call that pvp.

Heavens forbid if there was any actual risk to it.


You apparently don't live in a c5/6. I've lived in a c6 - c6 for almost 3 years. When you roll, you either run into a black hole (ie empty space) or another entities home system. As 90% of people in c6 space are pvp groups, yes. We look for ACTUAL fight where both sides lose a bunch.

Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#278 - 2014-08-06 19:17:17 UTC
This change improves the ability to gank when rolling with capitals. It doesn't add risk. Sure it adds risk to the rollers, but it removes risk from the rollees - I would say in aggregate there is little change in risk.

Any time A catches B on either side of a wh they have the option to engage. Folks can cross jump the capital and get closed in with it and fight on the roller side. You can bubblel the wh before they initiate warp and catch them off the wh. There are a lot (that's bunches and bunches) of crappy tricks you can play on each other while rolling. Heck you can cloak a light carrier in the rollers hole and close the cap in on your side. Lots of sneaky options.

With the mass based range you TAKE THE RISK OUT OF ENGAGING the roller. You just uncloak and gank him before he crawls back to the wh (or aligns to a bounce). The only arguement for this I'm seeing is that now you have to bring sufficient folks to defend your cap. That's already true. The difference is today the guys ganking the caps would have to commit and get closed in the rollers wh. Soon they can just sit back and wait and all the risk is on the roller.

So right now the risk is on the rollee side to go all in with the closer. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't. But at least the wh gets rolled and the 2 sides can keep looking for whatever elsewhere. With the mass range stuff all the risk will be on the roller. If a fight isn't going to happen the only difference is the wh doesn't get rolled and folks can't go on w/ their game play.

You're taking away the rollers advantage and giving it to the rollee. That's really all you're doing. Trading the ability to seek things out by collapsing wh for the ability for a cheap capital gank (which isn't pvp).

I think ragerolling sux personally. I left a c5/c5 because of it. That being said - I know a lot of guys who love to roll for content. It's odd that the game is deliberately being changed to take away or at least impede a practice that many folks enjoy. And for what? Cheap roller ganks (which aren't actual pvp)?

You say there should be more risk for rolling... by my accounts you've just taken it from the rollee (the ability to go all in and force a fight on the rollers side upon collapse and placed it on the rollers side. I just can't see the logic in it.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#279 - 2014-08-06 19:17:45 UTC
Mindraak wrote:
ChaseTheLasers wrote:
Heck, there are entirely different methods you could use. What about WH jumping eating into cap? Again, scale it with ship size. A frig only gets hit for 10% cap use. A capital uses 80% (or whatever) of its cap jumping. All of a sudden the capital has to replenish cap before jumping back again. If it gets attacked it's not in a great situation and could quickly give the rollers a serious issue, even with a limited number of people attacking it. A Bhaalgorn is really going to ruin a rollers day if it landed on grid while it's charging its cap.
Now the rollers need to commit a fleet to save it or it dies.


this is the same bad idea just using a diferent method. a small corp will not commit a cap or an orca because of the enormous risk of loosing it, therefore it will be imposible for them to roll WHs and big corps will loose the ability to roll quickly enough.


I think the point of contention may be this:

How easy should it actually be to roll a wormhole? It would seem to me as if the wormholes themselves were not designed with rolling in mind, they were designed for the mass limits to be spooky and mysterious and cut large fleets apart before they realized what was happening. Hole rolling is essentially a metagame phenomena, with no direct mechanical support.

There are two perspectives:
A) It should be easier, since hole rolling is done primarily as a way to seek content, not to escape it.
B) It should be harder, to make it more difficult for people to escape from a 'bad' situation.

Under option A, the players are the ultimate controlling force for the space. The players move their statics around, adjust the chains to suit their needs, and rage roll to force themselves into the chains of others. The wormhole is like the location changing door in Howl's Moving Castle. If this is what we want, if this is what we're going for, then you could hypothetically at that point start introducing structures that ****** with wormhole behaviour. This is the path for wormhole space that says 'the players want an environment they can manipulate the **** out of' and make the way everything behaves highly controlled, and turn it into the '0.0 that never was' I, as someone who enjoys the idea of construction, colonization, exploration, and expansion as directions for my gameplay, I can appreciate this path, but I do understand why it is definitely not everyone's cup of tea.

Under option B, the game controls the wormholes, and the players are forced to ride the twisting networks of wormhole connections, essentially at its mercy. The new, tiny, mass regening wormholes are the ultimate examples of this. In many ways completely uncontrollable, and could end up forming a 'second network' of frigate only corridors through space. If option B is what you want, then the change to spawn distance is also good, because it makes it harder and unsafer to roll a hole, taking the perspective that taking direct control of the wormhole network in that manner is Meddling In Forces Beyond Our Ken. If that's the direction you're taking it, then make all the holes mass regening, add the mass spawn thing, cut the lifetime of every hole in half, and sit back and see what we players do. Because trust me, we'd still figure out how to abuse the **** out of all of it.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#280 - 2014-08-06 19:18:14 UTC
Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote:
Saede Riordan wrote:
Thus, I actually had a really interesting thought. If CCP really wants to add a weird twist to wormhole space, something you don't find anywhere else, then do this: give wormholes specific entrances and exits. Make them one way. Instead of having a B274 highsec static, you have the W-space to K-space connection, and then K-space to W-space connection. These could be A) on grid from each other, at variable distances depending on hole type, system class, and the like. B) off grid of each other, having to each be scanned down separately. Either way, the mass and the mass limitations could still be tied together. Its still one 'connection' as it were, its just that the exit point and the entrance point are displaced from each other. This effectively turns the transit into a big loop. Rage rolling can still happen quickly, just complete once circuit. However, it means when you jump into a wormhole, the place you come out on the other side will not have a wormhole there, you will have to warp to it/slowboat towards it.

This accomplishes the objective of preventing someone who jumps through a hole from instantly bugging out back through it, and adds a sort of dynamic action that doesn't have a direct comparison in K-space.

I haven't thought it through fully, and there might be lots of arguments against, but I think that this idea merits further expansion.

In essence, every invading fleet is forced to go all in. This would increase risk significantly.

Very interesting.

It still doesn't change smaller groups from pos-hugging rather than trying to combat roll. But that's not a huge deal.


Maybe this idea is why they're going to allow us to speed-copy twice as many bookmarks, because you'll need 4 bookmarks now for every connection, not just two.