These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at


  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Mass-Based Spawn Distance After WH Jumps

First post First post First post
Lord Blacksmith
Midnight Conclave
Weaponized Boredom.
#341 - 2014-08-06 22:46:14 UTC
There's thirty-odd (at least) pages of feedback on this issue already. Tweaking the ranges slightly really changes nothing.
Goonswarm Federation
#342 - 2014-08-06 22:52:38 UTC
Lord Blacksmith wrote:
There's thirty-odd (at least) pages of feedback on this issue already. Tweaking the ranges slightly really changes nothing.

Considering the only change you are likely wanting to see is a return to the status quo, I would begin preparing yourself for disappointment.

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

Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#343 - 2014-08-06 22:53:26 UTC
Does anyone have hard stats on wormhole activity?

If the current numbers are low, and/or falling then defenders of the current system need to explain why, not attack needed changes.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#344 - 2014-08-06 22:55:04 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
na'Vi Ronuken wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release.

Can you tell the dudes sitting in your building that this is a bad change and we don't want it. or better yet -- as him/her to start reading this thread to understand the public sentiment behind this.
Don't worry, everything posted in this thread is being read by the relevant designers (I sit right next to Fozzie so can confirm this first hand!).

You set next to Fozzie?

I'm mailing you 2 large Haddok.

Please smack him over the head with the smaller of the two for what he did to my beloved geddon.

The second one..... get a 4 step running start and whack him across the back of the head with it. If (after he gets up) he mentions or you even think he is thinking of mentioning or implementing this mass range mess get a 5 step running start and do it again. If you run out of room or the haddok gets too mushy - let me know - I'll send another.
Neil DeTyson Degrassetyso
Adhocracy Incorporated
#345 - 2014-08-06 22:55:09 UTC
How about this:

Have wormholes have an automatic effect that prevents warping within X distance based on the Wormhole size but you can still warp to 0. For example a C1 to C2 is a small hole so the wormhole only disturbs 3-6k; a larger hole C6 to C6 would have 10-12k. This would allow for caps to warp to 0, jump, jump back, and then slow boat away a bit. Leaving assets on the field for longer when one is rolling an empty hole is no big deal because your hole should already be closed. IF the hole has hostiles in it, the hostile fleet has a chance to jump in after and get some kills and then scan themselves out.

This is just an idea, I'm sure it is exploitable but seems to give more corps of different sizes the ability to generate content.
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#346 - 2014-08-06 22:56:10 UTC
Nys Cron wrote:
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

i have to agree with Nys on this one. By forcing an attacking site to actually give your fleet over to random spawn luck you can loose the entire fight just by jumping in.
i guess new approaches will develope over time but for me its a pro and con for more engagements and right now it seems that probably it will go in the opposite direction in terms of the risk is too high we will not do it. the ones who will still do it are the ones who are doing it right now. so bascially all the major w-space corps/alliances (noho, hk, etc. )

Wanna join FC? Click Here

Brutus Le'montac
#347 - 2014-08-06 22:57:41 UTC
this change is for the worst, if you dont like rolling wormholes you should make more or better balanced connections, which imo are the reason people roll a new wh.

just some numbers from oure wh:

got a lowsec static, class 3 past 2 days:

day 1 :4 nullsec openings. no low or hi, no wormhole chain.
day 2: 3 nullsec openings.

why use a " static" if it barely follows it??

ofcourse we rolled the wormhole in hope for a hisec/lowsec opening so we can finally do some stuff or restock.

if you dont like that behavior, then more fix the statics or max amount of openings to hi/low/null at any time, sitting in a wh with 3 exits to nullsec is bound to be trouble.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#348 - 2014-08-06 23:05:39 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?

1. capitals don't go through gates, so???
2. there are thousands of gates for you to play on. If you don't like the wh mechanic, then don't fight on wh (in lieu of changing wh).

The wh mechanics are probably the best pvp thing dropped in the game in years. They have led to so many outstanding pvp occurances. They aren't broken and they don't need changed. Lots and lots of guys really like rage rolling as a play style.

This change creates so much negative (2 threadnaught in 24 hrs). At some point I would I'm hoping that it might occur to folks to not change it after all.
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2014-08-06 23:06:05 UTC
This would virtually KILL the smaller WH corps. There are only a hand full of large corps who can viably rageroll under these new parameters. Smaller corps who depend on this ability to defend themselves will largely die off. WH space will become another Null sec where only a few corps/alliances control.

I would suggest a random WH mass size where the mass of a WH can radically change from 1 bil to 3 bil regardless of WH class. So in essence a C5 with a C5 connection could potentially collapse the moment a capital jumps through or it might not.

also you could make them regenerate as ships are trying to collapse the hole.
Ray Kyonhe
Gallente Federation
#350 - 2014-08-06 23:21:51 UTC
Idea which suggested that all caps in a fleet should be placed closer to each other - but whole fleet still on significant distance from wh they entered the system through - should solve the problem. It will allow this cap fleet to refit and fight in full force, and will introduce additional risk simultaneously. So, what the matter? Solution have been found, actually.

Survey/voting system inbuilt to the game client: link_Reforming corp and taxation system: link_New PvE content (reward collective gameplay): link

Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#351 - 2014-08-06 23:30:31 UTC
This idea is AWFUL and you should feel bad about it.
Please refer to the ~35+ page threadnaught already here on it for reasons why.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:

Down the Pipe:

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#352 - 2014-08-06 23:31:14 UTC
Ray Kyonhe wrote:
Idea which suggested that all caps in a fleet should be placed closer to each other - but whole fleet still on significant distance from wh they entered the system through - should solve the problem. It will allow this cap fleet to refit and fight in full force, and will introduce additional risk simultaneously. So, what the matter? Solution have been found, actually.

I didn't look at your other ideas, but this one solves nothing. Let me lay out the problem clearly for you.

WH mechanics are fine. They generate a lot of great fights. WH mechanics aren't broken.

This change will affect something that isn't broken so said change is bad. Any change to a great (and obviously loved) mechanic is bad. Tweaking a bad idea doesn't change the fact that it is a bad idea.

Here's an example: You work for me. I'm the boss. I show up monday and tell you that I'm getting rid of all your health benefits. You and all the other employees point out it's bad and all the bad effects. As a good and understanding boss I only cut your benefits in half. Does that make me a good and understanding boss? No. Does that make cutting your health benefits in half a good idea? No.

Yew Nuttah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#353 - 2014-08-06 23:32:41 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
Please keep your feedback constructive and in accordance with the forum rules.

While you can of course just disagree with the proposed changes, it is much more helpful if you list the reasons and explain why you disagree. The post above by Traiori is a good example of constructive feedback.

Thank you!

Um actually he did give constructive feedback. I didn't read one thing that was offensive.
Edward Sanmora
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#354 - 2014-08-06 23:39:14 UTC
As someone who spends most of their time in worm holes, these changes will drastically diminish of the game.

Being able to have wormhole control isn't a bad thing. For groups wanting to organize such there always the possibility of new holes opening into them. However several of these changes make that harder.

Worm hole mass reg - This makes it much hard for groups who are trying to do wormhole control because of a planned operation.

Distance from worm hole - This makes it much hard to find a new hole, just through and possibly get in a fight. It means that ships are very scattered when they come in. Also groups who are actively rolling holes have to spend far more time doing so.

Wormhole appearance - By waiting till the first person jump through you give the aggressor an unfair advantage, because they had time to form up a fleet on the hole, where the location being open into had no warning. At worse as soon as someone get within range of the then it should show up on the new location. The simple logic is if the worm hole there, it's open on both sides.

I realize that the little news things says that CCP isn't trying to punish Worm Hole people, but it seems that every proposal I've heard since I started playing a bit over a year ago has made things worse. Yet things like POS mechanics which could use some help have been completely ignored.
Asuri Kinnes
Caldari State
#355 - 2014-08-06 23:42:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuri Kinnes
Kirasten wrote:
Quoted for emphasis.

The great thing about wormhole living is that we can carve out our content with small groups of friends. This suggested change favors the large and will be more than crippling to the small groups.




Edward Sanmora wrote:
Yet things like POS mechanics which could use some help have been completely ignored.

Actually, some very good changes have happened with POS mechanics (or at least their associated structures).

The reason POS mechanics are such a hard change is that it is literally legacy code from the launch of the game.

When they start digging in there, everything starts changing in unpredictable ways.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

#356 - 2014-08-06 23:46:31 UTC
Undoubtedly one you're expecting a firestorm over. With good reason :) This is a major change to a core mechanic that defines life in W-space.

If you bothered to read the concerns from the other thread, you would know just about all of the reasons why this is bad. Remember, this is a core mechanic that defines life in W-space. It defines how we engage in the majority of our combat situations. Instead of rehashing all of the very well-worded arguments from the other thread, which you have either read or ignored, let me give an example of why it is so bad.

I've already said this is a core mechanic that defines how we engage in the majority of our combat situations. The nature of wormholes means we can hide a fleet on the other side, or in another connected system, away from prying scout eyes. Any scouts entering the hole sniffing for the trap would need to put forth extra effort, besides just checking local and warping to neighboring gates.

The closest comparison to K-space mechanics is the Cyno. You can land your fleet on that group of seemingly helpless ships, as the surrounding systems are empty, when suddenly they light a cyno. In jumps a subcap fleet double that of your own, followed by a couple of capital ships. You were caught completely off-guard, and without significant effort, there was no way for you to know this was coming.

So it is with combat in W-space. We fight on wormholes because they are a natural boundary. You can jump in, and if there is too much trouble, you can jump back and attempt to get away. This carries a danger with it, that of polarization. If you are caught when you make that return jump, you CAN'T get away again. There is no other option except to kill or be killed.

With this change applied to W-space, it would be like your carriers landing up to 20k away from the cyno beacon, and supers and titans even further, in any random direction. Combat refitting, a major strategy in capital combat, would no longer be possible. If this change were made to Cynos and bridging, would anyone bring a Revenant into combat again unless they were DEAD certain it wasn't a trap? How would the use of Supers and Titans change if such a change went into place. This would kill an aspect of gameplay PL is well known for.

Since Orcas and Freighters are also a mainstay of logistics in W-space, and will be impacted by this change, imagine by comparison what effect this would have on jump freighters as they move throughout Nullsec. With a possibility of landing 10-15k away from a station, or inside of the station if RNG is against you, would this increase conflict with harassing logistics traffic, or would it eliminate the use of such expensive ships altogether?

It's easy to see that such a change would have a drastically negative effect if applied to cynos and bridges. Unlike W-space, those are not even the primary mechanics used for encountering combat in Nullsec the way wormholes are for W-space.

So scrap the whole spawn distance change, keeping the 0 - 5km spawn distance we have now.

If you wish to slow down rage-rolling, and add risk to combat rolling holes in the face of larger groups, add one-way polarization timers instead of breaking spawn distances. When you jump into a wormhole, depending on your ship's mass, you may not jump back for a period of time; frigates would have the shortest timer, perhaps only as long as the session change cloak, while capital ships would have times in the order of minutes. This is in addition to the already-present polarization timer, perhaps extended some minor amount, to 6 or 7 minutes The one-way timer provides risk. The two-way timer provides equalization between all ships.

Unlike the spawn distances, this would add meaningful choice to rolling holes in W-space: can I defend my capital ship long enough to jump it back if I need to, or should I use a smaller ship instead? Is it worth hanging my dread's backside out in the wind to easily roll the hole, or should I use a few more people and some Orcas or battleships instead? Smaller groups could still use bigger ships in quiet systems, as they only need to wait out their jump timers, but it's no longer a matter of 10-15 seconds to collapse the hole with virtually no risk.

This would also place risk on rolling fleets comparable to a capital ship jumping to a cyno. It's fuel based, yeah, but it's also capacitor based. You can't immediately jump back to your escape cyno beacon (assuming not tackled) because you have to wait for your cap to regen. The same with jumping back into your originating wormhole system.
The Order of Atlas
#357 - 2014-08-06 23:48:44 UTC  |  Edited by: BeanBagKing
I'll cut straight to the obvious change, tldr; here's my suggestion that would allow for rage rolling to continue, yet make it hard to control holes rolling into your system.

If I jump through the static type W237 in my home wormhole, I appear at current range (between 0 and 5km).
If a new sig appears in my WH, a K162, and I jump through it, then I appear at ~mass range~, so I have to either warp off and back or burn back to my hole.

Here's my reasoning: You want us to face more risk and less hole control. We want to be able to roll out hole to find pvp. You have a point in some ways, but you are ignoring the glaring obvious point we are all trying to make. If make it an unsafe pain the the ass to roll holes, we're going to stop doing it at worst. At best it takes us twice/three times as long to roll holes, we roll less holes and find less pvp.

Changing it like this makes it so we can still roll holes just as quickly as we do now, we can still find pvp, and we can still control our static. However:

We face more danger from incoming k162's, we can't slam them closed in the face of someone rolling into us.

We can't easily extract, if we jump back because we are losing, our caps come back scattered and outside of jump range (assuming they aren't polarized to begin with).

Traps can be set. If we are out on a roam and hostiles get between us they can cloak and wait till we come back, jumping back into our home system will put us outside jump range.

I'm sure there's other scenarios more creative people can think of. My point is that it retains the status quo that we want in terms of being able to seek out pvp. Yet increases the danger we face if other people come into us or we are jumping back into our own system. In fact, this would stack the odds in favor of someone jumping into our system from their own static, they would land at 0 whereas if we took the fight to them we would be jumping a k162 and landing at range. TBH someone jumping into another persons home needs the odds stacked in their favor.

Rage rolling, and the forming up, logistics, scouts, etc that are needed is already a HUGE pain in the ass requiring hours of preparation. Do not make that process take twice as long (if it happens at all).

Let me reiterate what EVERYONE ELSE has been saying. This change, as it stands, is a terrible terrible idea. 90% of the time when we roll a hole it's to find pvp. If you make this more difficult, you reduce the pvp that occurs in wormhole space, not increase it. Look at the player feedback here, if you make this change we're going to be saying "I told you so" in 3 months.

If you want a lore reason, then knowing the WH type allows us to calibrate our jump drive engines and stabilize our mass inertia nullifiers. Whereas jumping through an unknown k162 doesn't allow us to calibrate our doohickies. >_>

I'll put replies to other changes (if I have any) in a separate post.

Edit: And to address the first note in the dev blog, this not only breaks things up and adds something new, it does so without destroying the way we find pvp, and also does it in a way that creates some variables on each side, not the same thing no matter which way you go through a WH.

Edit 2 real quick: I do want to say thank you CCP for looking at wormholes, it's always nice to have your gameplay style touched on, and I don't want it to seem like I'm taking that for granted.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#358 - 2014-08-07 00:04:54 UTC
Let me bottom line this for you:

The health and activity levels of any WH corp is very closely linked to how often they roll their static.
Rolling the static generates new content, leads to PVP and PVE alike, gives people new chains to scan out, hell, finding things to do in new chains is what you do in active WH corps!

Sure, this change doesnt actually make it impossible to roll your chain but it makes it astronomically more tedious and dangerous.

This change actively discourages small groups from rolling their holes and makes it take much longer for them to do so.
Even for large groups, how many times do you think someone is going to be willing to slowboat their Moros 20km back to the WH, even with full fleet support, before they get super bored and log off?
I don't know what the actuall number will be but I guarantee it will be FAR lower than the number of WHs people are willing to roll in a row currently looking for action.

This change leads to a lack of motivation to roll your chain which directly results in a general decline in activity since less fresh chains = less interaction and less opportunities.
If you want to look at it in another way, it's like restricting the number of jumps a kspace gate can take per hour. The only thing it does is reduce activity.

Please, do NOT implement this change in ANY form.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:

Down the Pipe:

Andre Coeurl
Embers Children
#359 - 2014-08-07 00:08:15 UTC
Most proposed changes to WH space seem reasonable, but two of them clearly go against the chance small groups will have to survive in higher class systems.

One is the concept of random frigate WHs spawns, as it will need to be balanced very carefully as we all know how powerful a large enough group of Stealth Bombers can be against anything but a capital ship... and to be honest I have experienced also an increased general rate of WH spawns lately, with two separate disturbing instances where a C248 even lasted as long as 4 days! I hope this was a bug but this whole idea must be introduced and balanced carefully.

The other is the mass/spawn distance concept. As lots of other pointed out already and thoroughly explained the reasons why, it will simply mean no smaller entity will ever try to close a WH connecting to larger entities' systems, as well as to inhabited Nullsec and Lowsec.
I also want to underline that it isn't at all safe to try and roll a WH under hostile surveillance if your support fleet isn't a reasonable match for the enemy one, because it always takes a long time to align and warp caps to a WH, and if the enemy is already having a covops watching you they'll have plenty of time to warp their fleet to the WH and choose where to engage.
If the carrier or dread manages to jump through and close the connection, it will be either stranded on the far end and easily killed, or the enemy will have had time enough to jump their fleet through and kill the capital on the way back.
A superior support fleet will then have an easy enough time finding the local static and extracting, even more so after having killed a capital which means reducing thorougly the force factor of the already inferior fleet.

Granted, sometimes the trick has worked, but that happens either by sheer luck (enemy FC went for a ****?), or by major distraction of enemy scouts, or by managing to make the available support fleet appear bigger than it actually is.

As a Class-6 dweller I constantly experience jumping into C6 and C5s which are empty (I'd say 2 every 3), while a minority are either home of very organized and careful small alliances or they're a hub for one of the very few big PVP WH alliances.
While I admire the latter as the most successful evolutionary adaptation to the hostile environment, it's become quite obvious to them that the dwindling of smaller entities residing in WH space provides them with less targets and potential fun, while so many smaller alliances obviously have had enough frustration to push them away from WH space entirely.
The total fun-sum has been steadily in the negative for a while, I consider it unwise to push it even lower.
A Big Enough Lever
#360 - 2014-08-07 00:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
just a thought - the capitals - which you really want to be bubbled, will land outside a T2 fit hic's influence, enabling them to warp if you've got a hyena/rapier/huginn on grid. Is this deliberate?

when are you planning to roll this mechanic out to cynos in low and nullsec - because that's what you're doing to us WH'ers

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.