Wormholes

Come on, be fair, send him a bottle of whisky instead. He probably could do with a stiff drink after seeing members of virtually EVERY wormhole groups reaction to this.

I really do not feel that anyone could really go ahead with this one now all the issues have been pointed out. all the other ideas have some good in them, feedback is coming in to tweak them that will allow the goals they wish and make things better and more interesting.

This idea however stands out like a rotting whale! a lemon slice and a bit of parsley as a garnish and trimming its flippers is not going to change that, and I am sure that they are wishing they had not listened to whoever suggested it.

now, how to quietly get rid of this damn cetacean........

I contend that the proposed “mass-based spawn distance after wormhole jumps” does not accomplish its intended purpose and detracts from other positive aspects of gameplay generated by the current wormhole mechanic, and that its implementation should be delayed.

While a need exists for CCP to address concerns that player interaction is currently being bypassed, the proposed modification affecting spawn distances after wormhole jumps will not accomplish that goal. As discussed more fully below, CCP’s institution of additional wormhole changes in the Hyperion release are expected to promote player interaction and are not perceived to counteracting effects on player content generation. Furthermore, a delay in the implementation of the spawn distance modification would allow CCP sufficient time to evaluate the actual impact of the other wormhole modifications without foreclosing its ability to make such a change in the future. However, should the spawn distance modification be implemented simultaneously with the other changes, CCP will be unable to assess accurately the impact of the other player interaction content. Accordingly, I suggest that CCP postpone the spawn distance component of the Hyperion release pending an evaluation of the impact that the other proposed changes have on the wormhole environment.

*********************
The proposed change to spawn distance post-wormhole jump is “intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption.” CCP Fozzie states that “[w]e are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.”

CCP is using time as a mechanic to introduce risk -- the longer it takes for assets to travel to a wormhole to close it, the more those assets are at risk of loss. Presumably, an astute wormhole pilot will spot a capital entering their C5 or C6 system and will have sufficient time to muster troops to block the closing effort.

Note that under the proposed mechanic the amount of time available to the defending pilots is not fixed. Lower mass ships spawn closer to the wormhole than larger mass capitals. Since lower mass ships are faster, they can approach and jump through the wormhole quicker. For such ships, the spawn distance modification does not afford the defending fleet any meaningful additional time. Alternatively, the slower capital ships will take significantly longer to return to the wormhole and will consequently create a de facto maximum defender fleet form-up time. Based on the current proposed distances and capital ship speeds, the “closing timer” is about three minutes after the capital enters the system. Given that a scout ship from the closing fleet would have jumped through the wormhole initially and that the wormhole signature will have appeared on scan, the defending crew should have more than enough time to scramble an interceptor or HIC to head to the wormhole to potentially pin down a capital ship spawning outside of jump range. Risk generated.

CCP acknowledges that time equates to risk. CCP Fozzie states that “[the spawn distance] change would indeed increase the amount of time involved in ‘ragerolling,’ but we believe that with the correct [spawn distance] values ragerolling can still be viable.” Whether the distances currently proposed from a wormhole jump range is the correct balance of time vs. risk remains debatable.

However, time as a function of the increased spawn distance from the wormhole is not the only component changed as a result of the proposed modification. The absolute distance between the ships that jump through a wormhole will also increase. The ramifications of that change affect more than the time (and risk) associated with closing a wormhole -- the random generation of spawn points over a greater distance will impact the usefulness of certain ship modules. For example, if a capital ship is no longer “viable” to fly back to a wormhole without support, then additional pilots will be needed for the closing fleet.

CCP Fozzie states that “we believe [the spawn point distance] values would ensure a significant amount of risk in jumping capitals through wormholes while also allowing players to effectively roll wormholes using supported capitals and orcas.” That may be true but the risk is not shared equally. As noted above, support fleets require additional resources. For some alliances/corporations that requirement will be an inconvenience but for others it will be a bar to rolling as they will lack sufficient resources to close the wormhole. As a result, alliances/corporations with smaller numbers will suffer a disproportionate impact from the proposed change.

Furthermore, the greater separation of ships when entering a wormhole will also impact a decision whether to engage in wormhole PvP. Given that an attacking fleet can, at most, commit three capitals to a fight through a wormhole, the negative effects of potentially spreading their spawn points as far as 40 km apart would be a sufficient deterrent to jumping into a defending fleet. Essentially, each capital fleet will await the other jumping through a hole -- something that is unlikely to occur.

Thus the spawn distance modification, as proposed, (1) will increase the time to close wormholes, (2) require greater resources to do so, and (3) reduce the willingness of pilots to enter into wormhole PvP. Such a scenario is hardly a recipe for increased player interaction.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

On the other hand, the Hyperion release is introducing other mechanisms that will unequivocally increase player interaction (e.g., wormhole effect rebalancing, second static for C4s, more randomly spawning wormholes, and changes to K162 signature appearances). While those changes will have a negative impact for some play styles, they do not fundamentally reduce player interaction. CCP should allow those changes to go live and observe whether they generate the desired effect.

CCP Fozzie states that “the increase in random wormholes will provide a secondary outlet for players looking for fights without needing to rageroll as often.” Presumably this positive effect would take place regardless of the spawn distance modification. If, however, the Hyperion release also includes the spawn distance modification and player interaction decreases, CCP will have lost the ability to assess the actual impact of the other modifications.

Also, CCP is hardly foreclosed from adopting the spawn distance modification in the future. If the other Hyperion modifications do not generate the desired effect, then CCP can roll out this one and observe what happens.

At a minimum, the harm of instituting the spawn distance change outweighs the harm of delaying the change.

Accordingly, CCP should postpone its deployment of the spawn distance modification in order to avoid the above identified harms and assess the impact of the other pro-player interaction changes before moving forward with such a modification.

We are a small corporation of mostly PvE people, for the simple reason that we like and trust each other, and we also want to avoid the politics and risks of the large numbers.
This change will destroy pretty much our play style by making it impossible for us to roll the WH-s.

Keep in mind, we are closing the WH-s to protect ourselves, not to look for fights.

If we had the numbers to provide a proper defense on the other side of the WH for the ships we use to collapse the exits, we would be a PvP corporation not PvE/Industrial.

The Hammer is coming wormhollers, flee while you can to SOV with the other bears.

ebil goons

For being a group of players who pride themselves on the heritage of taking a set of unknown, hard to live with mechanics and creating an entire community out of it...we sure don't seem to like figuring out new things anymore.

Love this.

Well said Des. My biggest concern is your final point. I have no doubt that large wormhole corps/alliances will be able to adapt to increased time and resources needed to rageroll for content. However, the proposed mass change puts the entity that jumps in (assuming anyone will still be willing to take fights) at even more of a disadvantage than they currently experience.

What I currently enjoy about current wormhole capital warfare is, assuming no prior seeding of capitals, an aggressor can only field up to 3 capitals when taking a fight "on the other side." Despite the implementation of mobile depots (hard to effectively deploy one in combat) tactical refitting of capitals is a major part of w-space combat. With these proposed mass/jump changes refitting your dread or second carrier off of a friendly carrier goes right out the window.

CCP, along with my stated reason and then many well thought out responses in this thread, I ask that you consider delaying this aspect of the Hyperion release until further discussion and study of it's affects can be studied. I am not opposed to the other changes mentioned in the devblog. Tweaking wormhole effects is well in line with other re-balancing changes that have been made since CCP Rise and Fozzie joined the team. Additionally, delaying the appearance of K162s I believe will have the desired effect of creating more risk and therefore more content. Again I do not support the change to mass based spawn distance because I firmly believe that overall it will be a detrimental change to all of wormhole activity.

Thank you for your consideration.

So glad I left w-space before this went live. I'm trying to imagine re-living the last four/five years in a high-class WH, with this incredibly uninformed change already in place, and I'm pretty sure the majority of the best PvP content I've had would have never happened, my time in w-space would have ended abruptly, and I never would have met and fought a lot of awesome people.

After all this time since adding w-space and being able to watch the activity drop out the last few years, having all the metrics, and making little to no changes along the way to get people back, I'm still surprised that CCP could engineer a mechanic that shows such ignorance in, and disconnection with, w-space culture and operations since their inception.

All strong arguments have been made already by people that have a clue and the patience to explain, to you, how we've played your game the last 5 years, like the NoHo/AHARM/Adhoc/SSC guys. If you put this distance/mass change through, I have no doubt you'll alienate a large part of what actual community still exists outside k-space. I just wanted to add to the show of disappointment and mirror the frustration as a ex-long term WH dweller that primarily flew caps and participated in the best w-space PvP the community could make with what few tools we were initially given.

Delaying the appearance of new K162s in a system would have been a sufficient stopping point if the intention is to increase risk and interaction and have less rage farming. Having experienced both sides of that coin, I can say the main risk while farming is the new K162 showing up. If it shows up instantly (or when I double-click the Show Anoms box) then only a fully primed and ready group of PvPers rage rolling is going to catch me, and even then they can easily screw up and DIAF in the same site they tried to tackle me in whilst I warp out.

Now, imagine how long that active group of guys is going to be willing to sit around and rage roll for me, with this new mechanic, when rolling is already tedious and boring for all involved and the majority of your active guys are sitting there doing nothing but waiting during the process. They will roll less holes, have less chance of landing into me, and their burnout/turnover ratio will go sky high from people getting bored out of their minds.