These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: Into the Known Unknowns: Wormhole Updates with Hyperion

First post First post
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#41 - 2014-08-06 21:23:25 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It is pretty simple.

The null sec cartels have very little control over ISK generation in wormholes, so got CCP to nerf PvE in them.
Once CCP makes further changes so the cartels can control and rent out wormhole systems, then potential ISK generation in wormhole systems will suddenly be improved.

There is a point in here, which is that arrangements like my previous corp's, where we lived in a C2 and ran sites off our C5 static, will become more difficult to sustain. C2s are PVP generators out of proportion to their class, mostly because their residents tend to send fleets into high end holes and into lowsec and nullsec, so this could be a double nerf. We already had plenty of excitement when we had to rage-roll a static opening into a hole with a giant, hungry corp in it whose online fleet was double the size of our corp. And if we failed, well, that was pretty much it for the next few hours at least.

I don't see that getting easier.

What would be much funnier is a mass / time since last jump calculation. If you send one ship through, it won't end up too far from the hole, though large ships will be somewhat farther away. If you send two large ships through in quick succession, the second ends up significantly further away then if just one had gone through. If you pile a large number of subcaps through a hole at once, they get scattered all around the hole. Small fleets of 1-3 ships can carry on as before (except that Orcas, freighters and capitals still end up farther away than they currently do), while large fleets have a choice to make. Newbies in frigates and hunters in T3s are largely unaffected.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2014-08-06 21:46:53 UTC
Let me guess....these changes will only make it more difficult for the experienced who have already lived in wormholes for years to continue to live there. Yes we must die more often so more ISK churn can be obtained... actual improvements to the game like Alliance bookmarks... or asset tracking from ship arrays/hangars... or who jumped in your ship when... or locks on starships will be done. I always leave my Lexus unlocked... after all who would steal it and in the future everyone is trustworthy!

Yes ... it figures....
Thegasp Cupcakes
CareBears Gone Dark
#43 - 2014-08-06 22:27:34 UTC
As a major part of a small wormhole corporation (which recently increased in size). It has been very hard to catch people rolling holes connected to us. There's always been too big of a fleet on the other side to grab the orca or even attempt at attacking them. Adding distance to the jumping will make it more interesting, a long burn back to the hole, throw enough burst dps at the orca, and they could lose it if they remain on the other side. Yes, this will make locking holes harder. That is the point, and its well needed.

As for the little frigate holes... They sound very fun. Sure, mining and pve are going to be more of a ***** IF YOU HAVE ONE. But the solution is simple, can't close it, watch it. Oh god there's going to be a connection i can't close, where little pop-tarts can come through? ..Make them leave in their pods then.

Theres a lot of new content packed into here for wormhole dwellers and roamers. Anyone who says otherwise is naive.

- The major driver of content in eve is other players. If you're forever alone in wormholes, what fun is your HIC or other shinny pvp ships? Changing up the rules in wormholes is adding new content. If you can't agree with that, try this. The frigate holes, that's NEW. The mass jump distance, that's new, and hell: Black holes are basically new now. (who used them?)

Take a step back and look at what CCP is doing, there is plunty more content in wormholes. "Oh god oh god! they didn't give me a new ship to shoot people with? or a new module to better control my hole? RAGE!" Content isn't always about more ****. With these new changes, and added wormholes, its going to give you something new. Frigate roams are going to become more popular, and a better chance to waste them with rapid lights or small weapons, fast tracking, drones, etc. Is that not something new to do?

Come on everyone, chill the hell down. Look at all the angles, even ones you may not like. No, CCP did not do these changes for you. They did it to make the game more enjoyable and connect more players.
Scud Maximillion
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-08-06 22:30:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Scud Maximillion
CCP, ignore most of these guys. They are the ones that want cheap ganks with the lowest possible effort. The ones that want to roll caps....let's call them station games in a wormhole. The ones that want to gank sig runners, they are essentially gate campers. This is NOT the game you want and we need. We need fleet fights, not pandering to scrubs. Hold the line on this one for the good of the game. Good job on this one.
Brave Empire
Brave United
#45 - 2014-08-06 23:36:24 UTC
While I'm excited by some of these changes to WH space, even as someone who's only been living in w-space for the last year or so (and in a higher-class WH only for a couple months)… I do have to admit to some substantial trepidation over the mass/distance proposal. On the one hand, I can definitely see how it can promote fights (we ourselves have experienced the frustration of watching carriers blink away and collapse a hole just as we land on grid), and even how it can switch things up for habitual cap-killers (since cap trios will almost never end up in formation upon jumping through). On the other hand, I feel like it may disproportionately affect smaller/less established corps, who may genuinely want to play the game in the way it's meant to be played, but whose mere existence depends to a large extent on being able to control the terms of their engagements.

I could see it working, since while that change would increase risk, it could also substantially mitigate it by increasing the distance between yourself and an incoming hostile fleet (in the same way that jump gates do now). Also, rage-rolled connections may become less common, and many of our random connections are empty anyway (or in nullsec), so maybe it will average out to be about as safe in the long run but with bursts of increased danger… You can never really predict how people will adapt to a new feature!

Basically, what it boils down to is, I worry that it could force some smaller corps to back completely out of this part of the game if it's not handled just right, but I'm also not entirely opposed? I wonder if, maybe, it could instead start with a smaller distance, get feedback, then increase it to the proposed distances here if everything seems to be going well…?
The Order of Atlas
#46 - 2014-08-06 23:45:21 UTC  |  Edited by: BeanBagKing
Edit: Wrong thread, see my feedback regarding the mass jump changes here
Koda Thule
Third Herd
#47 - 2014-08-06 23:51:47 UTC
Way to **** with Wormholers fozzy. sooo glad you came up some arbitrary distance to come out of a wormhole and for what? 'Cause rolling wormholes is too easy' aka 'to **** on wormholers'. Outfucking standing. fixing **** that isnt broken. you guys should just call yourselves ccp blizzard. maybe you should spend your time adding actual NEW content instead of making its even more difficult to run a C5.
Michael Ruckert
Hohere Kavallerie-Kommando
#48 - 2014-08-07 00:24:09 UTC
From CCP Fozzie blog:

. . . we are confident that our community can provide us with calm and useful feedback nonetheless.


"No matter how well you perform there's always somebody of intelligent opinion who thinks it's lousy." - Laurence Olivier

Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2014-08-07 01:04:14 UTC
So CCP supporting emergent behavior is kind of a lie. They only support certain kinds of emergent behavior and if you pick and choose what kind of behavior you allow and that which you take corrective action for I don't see how you can claim to support emergent gameplay. I'm not saying it's a problem I'm just saying it's a lie.

Your emergent behavior prejudice seems to be tilted towards the pro-destruction side of things. You seem more than happy to support any type of behavior that increases carnage and seem to correct many activities that players create to reduce their own risk of loss or in some other way provide a more safe environment.

So you start off the Dev blog claiming to support emergent behavior regardless of if intended or not and I'm not even at the end of this blog yet and already I see where you guys are creating a new class of wormhole that only lets frigs through and regenerates to make it so that players can't make entrance to their systems extremely difficult and then go on to claim that change is to support emergent behavior when what it is doing is nerfing emergent behavior.

Again I don't have any problem with the change it's self I'm only speaking here to the Orwelian double speak.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2014-08-07 01:09:02 UTC
Koda Thule wrote:
Way to **** with Wormholers fozzy. sooo glad you came up some arbitrary distance to come out of a wormhole and for what? 'Cause rolling wormholes is too easy' aka 'to **** on wormholers'. Outfucking standing. fixing **** that isnt broken. you guys should just call yourselves ccp blizzard. maybe you should spend your time adding actual NEW content instead of making its even more difficult to run a C5.

Hey you had better watch what you say here. Don't you know that CCP supports emergent behavior? Oh and Henry Ford would sell you a Ford in any color you wanted as long as the color that you wanted was black.

So like Henry Ford CCP will allow you to come up with what ever kind of game play that you want as long as the type of game play that you want is causing chaos and carnage. Find some way to protect your ass through your own effort and hard work and be rest assured that your emergent behavior will be nerfed.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#51 - 2014-08-07 01:13:41 UTC
I cannot support this update, as one who lives in WH space currently and explores WH space. I like the changes to system bonuses, Changes in random warp in alright. Adding these small WHs within WHs for small ships to fly and battle in cool neat somewhat, probably won't be to huge but I can see it being useful. However you want to add more WH entrances, then make them harder to crash and make life riskier without adding any content or improving gain from living there? This will end in more players moving away from WH space and the activity in both PVE and PVP going down. Reason who are you going to kill if the residents are gone or sitting afk in there POS, If there is no one to kill or pvp with then what's the purpose of you pvpers coming there again? Because if you start taking away there false security without increase to gain then people will play safer which ends in less activity or most likely become inactive or leave.

All this update is, is change not content.
United Electro-Magnetic Federation
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#52 - 2014-08-07 02:03:11 UTC
Initially is looking pretty sweet. OMG Wolf Rayett Enyo time!

Time to head to the individual threads!
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2014-08-07 03:21:45 UTC
Most changes look good but
Mass change: -1
I can't see small corps risking closing their WH entrances off with caps after this change. Simply too risky. Large corps can certainly continue to do it as they have enough numbers to adequately defend their large ships while sending their orcas and dreads and such through.

If small corps can't close their holes efficiently, they will have to 1) stop their farming which fuels their existence 2) seek each other out and form larger corporations/alliances. That is certainly what we need in EVE. This is similar to the fuel increases for j-freighters. Who's the target? Just keep making it harder for small corps and what's the point trying to be accomplished? I really don't see this generating fights, maybe some ganks at first but not many fights.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#54 - 2014-08-07 03:50:19 UTC
Michael Ruckert wrote:
From CCP Fozzie blog:

. . . we are confident that our community can provide us with calm and useful feedback nonetheless.


It's okay now - they found out where he had hacked into the drug bins again.
Bessa Miros
#55 - 2014-08-07 04:10:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bessa Miros
admiral root wrote:
sweikewa wrote:
0% new content.

Make your own content.

Admiral root makes a good point. Without new content you get no new players - no new explorers. If noobies came for the legendary PVP, that's dried up and out of reach for them... all that's left to increase the populace is new content. Each expansion that has new content can bring old players back and new players in.

In this case new explorers into WH space. That will add content for everyone. W-space is like Nullsec - owned by groups with advanced out-of -game tools they invented. How can new people possibly succeed in even small ways against that?

I find the changes very very timid and not attractive to none WHers.
Anthar Thebess
#56 - 2014-08-07 06:53:43 UTC
Can every thing can be scanable in WH?
All anomalies included.

This should be unknown - so why i see stuff when i jump in into WH ?
Can sleepers reinforce POCO or at least spawn from time to time near POCO?
Someone put installation harvesting their planets!

Signatures also should from time to time yeald unexpected escalation - not typical one, but something like capital escalation, in every WH class.

Random ship/ group of ships spawn in addition to other group.
Now people are doing anomalies on very balanced ships in low class WH.
This will be very interesting, as they will have to be ready for something UNKNOWN.

Can in C1-C4 people have chance of getting C6 combat anomaly.
Something very tempting to do.
We can handle it right? Evil
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2014-08-07 07:23:59 UTC
Ivana Twinkle wrote:
ChromeStriker wrote:
So.... you added more connections, made it harder to roll them AND added little frigate back doors to anywhere in Wh space...

Because your wormhole should really be as safe as highsec, whilst you shovel isk.

Just to clear things up, as im sure your aware, you really dont need to be in a WH to make (shovel) isk Roll
A goon complaining about other peeps making isk (*cough moons*) is quite funny tho Blink

No Worries

#58 - 2014-08-07 08:42:16 UTC
You think you resolve Crius industrial bugs until you deploy a new patch?!?!?!?
Kusum Fawn
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-08-07 09:46:06 UTC

Please dont import all the problems of sov space into wh.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Rek Seven
Galactic Deep Space Industries
Warped Intentions
#60 - 2014-08-07 09:47:54 UTC
@ CCP, I don't think Fozzie likes giving feedback on our feedback Blink could somone pop over to the wormhole feedback threads and let people know you are listening to some of the legitimate concerns?

Personally i think the new mass based jump range for capitals is too extreme and will kill cap fights in wormhole space. Also, the new small mass frigate wormholes will be pretty pointless if it only leads to existing wormhole systems.