These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Wormhole Effect Rebalance

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#141 - 2014-08-08 11:39:55 UTC
Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now.
Samsara Nolte
Untethered
#142 - 2014-08-08 11:46:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Samsara Nolte
Sith1s Spectre wrote:
Threll Lornax wrote:
To expand on my original train of though, I do not understand why you feels that cataclysmic variables need this nerf when your numbers for this kind of space are negative. Admittedly not as much as for black holes, but still negative. To me, this means that cataclysmic variables are in need of some kind of buff to make the space more desirable. I don't have any game-fixing ideas when it comes to buffs, but I do have a suggested tweak to maybe address your issues with capital logistics in cataclysmic variables whitout making a logi chain in these systems impossible.

If the current bonuses to remote energy, shield and armour were to exclude capital modules the carrier fleets you want to address would be nerfed, without touching the smaller sizes (i.e cruiser logi and Dominix/Armageddon chains)

Alternatively, make the bonuses mentioned scale to 50% in C6, not 100%. Fleets would still be viable, but not to the supposedly overpowered level.

My main concern is that medium- to small-sized groups will be severely hurt, if not completely crippled, by your suggested changes since PvE will not be doable for some ppl in C5-6. When more logistic cruisers are needed in place of battleships, dps is lowered significantly without gaining a bonus in the new system, thus making the sites impossible to complete by current fleet sizes.


Replace guardians with Onerios' (or scimitars) end logi subcap problem


Sure that would work if sleepers wouldn´t neut the **** out of you ... when you scims are neuted whats keeping your fleet together ....
well we could always bring more scimmis ... to do the job 3 basis were able to you would need arooud 6 scimmis to be safe from being neuted an then you lost the ability to give your huginns or Lokis any cap .... to keep their webs running
seems great ... where these needed pilots can´t do anything else like fly a dreadnaught ...
sarcasm on "seems like a great change to me, because more logis will greatly reduce the risk you have to take during the siege cycle because the extra rep is gonna make the sleepers die faster so you don´t have to use extra siege cycles, for an already disliked variable - and of course when you are jumped by the big ones scimmis are the best option because they´ll never gonna bring any Bhallgorns to the fight, right ?" sarcasm off

Cataclysmic are already on the far end of you fast you are able to escalate and this will put it even more behind ... which is gonna make it less desirable by far - the upsiude so far by this effect was that if needed you could defend your hole against superior numbers by using a pantheon carrier setup which is now dead - efectivelly increasing the risk to live in such a wh as a small group manyfold i doubt many are willing to take this
Udonor
Doomheim
#143 - 2014-08-08 12:04:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
Quote:
I really doubt that players run into each other in WH systems and both sides decide not to fight because of system effects very often. Well some may attempt to flee due to disadvantage but then with proper ambush and tackling their consent is not necessary. One side almost always wants to fight.

They might decide not linger in and especially not to settle WH systems due to special effects and things like WH connection mass considerations. But the weight f special effects maybe just as much or more PVE and ability to warp away from mining to escape than influence on PVP once actions begins.


Udonor wrote:
Your assumption about Black Holes low activity may be WRONG. Most WH PVP Is not by setting mutually agreed time and place for dueling.

Roll Consider that maybe when PVP roams go to black holes they currently seldom find anybody to fight !!! Roll

Most WH PVP is about roams for ambush tears or attempts at defending convoys or ISK making ops.
Maybe low PVP is due to no sleeper or site farmers settled in black holes. Is PVE farming harder or mining more difficult?

Oops So EVEN IF you make WH more interesting places to fight , that does not ensure lots more PVP will occur there if the chances of encountering other players remains the same. Oops


Idea Consider making Black Holes into WH systems that lots of convoys want to travel through. Idea

(Convoys attract PVP roams due to value and flood of tears. People might even settle black holes as pirate bases!!! Meaning that black hole has people hanging around large amounts of time just looking for fights.)

How? One easy two step implementation is...

#1 Make Black Holes into WH space nexus points with say double the number of WH connections to other WH systems for class.
#2 Go one step further and give adjacent WH systems connected to black hole systems a greater chance of connecting to high sec or null sec.
Thus Null Sec folk can find shortcuts to high sec markets by traveling routes through Black hole systems.
Similarly higher class WH dwellers will also tend to find that routes to high sec markets pass through black holes systems.

Storywise you can say spinning black holes tend to generate or attract wh connections.


(Of course if you really just want to make it hard for bums to settle in WH systems - that is good too and you can ignore my observations. And despite the spin you would still be telling the true. Harder is simply harder and not forcing people out.)
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#144 - 2014-08-08 13:17:05 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now.


Without bonuses damps, you get them down to like 30k lock range with stacking penalty (from their 85 base fleeted). Looks pretty sad for balancing, only upside that those things 'only' got 80k ehp and 'only' move 2.6km/s (dual prop hurr)
Mithandra
B.O.P Supplication For Glorious
Dracarys.
#145 - 2014-08-08 14:10:54 UTC
I love these changes. Black hole systems have been in need of love for a while.

Hopefully people will start to take up residence

Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
Udonor
Doomheim
#146 - 2014-08-08 14:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
Now as for spectacular and silly effects...


how about slowly drifting and sparkly CLOUDS on any ACTIVE grid which do damage or EW or slow movement or add inertia?

Something pretty that is that is only a hazard during fast moving battles

Break a tackle or get out of optimal by dodging around until you put a small damage cloud between you and opponent.
Of course they can just fly through it if they got tank to spare.

Or flying through an EW cloud might cause you to lose lock.

Or a dense cloud might slow your speed or make acceleration and turning harder.


-OR-


how about some rare and infrequent pulses of environmental damage?
especially around pulsar and black holes

Something that varies upwards with WH system class and that might turn the tide of battle if it happens to overlap

maybe the pulse is more a visible sweeping searchlight effect which can be evaded if not locked in battle.
Aurora SunBelle
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#147 - 2014-08-08 15:28:20 UTC
DG Athonille wrote:
Samsara Nolte wrote:
Well - considering your chart Cataclysmic Variables are disliked second to only Black Hole and your idea to fix that is keep it exactly the same except for a nerf on the one attribute you shouldn´t have touched "Remote Capacitor Transmitter amount" the sole reason for the few who are living in there is that their carriers are pretty good inside - and after this change everybody living inside in one is pretty much flying them out, well except the ones needed in higher class holes for escalations.

No matter how hard i try to find any reason at all, that someone not already living in a cataclysmic is wanna live in one now, im unable to -
without any exaggeration i think you just created the new "Black Hole"


Agreed - the new cata bonuses and debuffs make no sense as proposed. The existing debuff pushes fleets towards remote rep versus local rep (and the implications for dreads vs carriers), and now you propose adding another debuff that would hamstring sustained remote rep? How is this promoting content creation, other than making our residents in cata systems easy prey? How does the proposed changes balance cata systems? They were already mostly disliked, but usable for remote rep fleets. Nerfing remote rep fleets just makes them completely disliked IMO.

Overall these changes smack of promoting full time PvP gameplay and offer nothing to individuals or groups that are PvE-centric. While the intro went to great lengths to paint a picture of not forcing players out of j-space, I think that is exactly what will occur for those individuals and corps that prefer a PvE-centric game play and selected specific WH systems to settle and operate in that fashion. Yes, PvP is *always* a possibility, however, making the system largely untenable except for large corporations and large fleets will push small corporations out IMO.

This is how I feel. My group is more PVE-centric. We aren't looking for fights but some of us will engage if provoked. But largely we just want to be left alone. It really takes away the fun for a lot of newer players to build something and then have it smashed right off the bat because... "pvp is the best thing ever lets go smash some new players stuff!" mentality. It really seems that this is what CCP is promoting now with these changes. I am concerned that as a PVE-player I will be reduced to hi-sec play only unless I somehow join a large alliance and want to continuous fight instead of actually playing industry.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#148 - 2014-08-08 16:16:04 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now.


Without bonuses damps, you get them down to like 30k lock range with stacking penalty (from their 85 base fleeted). Looks pretty sad for balancing, only upside that those things 'only' got 80k ehp and 'only' move 2.6km/s (dual prop hurr)


If you fight alone against any linked boosted and otherwise vastly outclassing opponent then you will die pretty much every time.

To talk about an orthrus as being a unique case here is disingenuous. A cerberus would also be hideously powerful here and it has much more staying power on field. The orthrus does significantly more volley damage it's true but the cerb has a superior capacitor and better bonuses for sustained fighting. All it takes is one arazu to wreck face.on an orthrus.
Udonor
Doomheim
#149 - 2014-08-08 16:33:53 UTC
Shocked How about creating a special area near black holes and pulsars where the star has a webbing effect proportional to distance? Shocked

Big smile If you make a mistake (especially during combat) and get too close webbing rises to 100% (near event horizon for black hole and similarly too damn close to pulsar). Escape only by dying. For black hole you could even stop training queue as NOT EVEN CLONE DATA can escape undistorted.




You might consider allowing a POS to circle the black hole at the 50% webbing distance if the inner planets are gone (quiet black hole). Mostly just to encourage use of the special battle area. Pulsars of course emit too much radiation even without infalling debris.
Udonor
Doomheim
#150 - 2014-08-08 17:01:56 UTC
Stop swimming upstream. MMO industry finances depends on the rule "more Excitement = more nonconsensual combat"
Terms of CCP loans probably state that. Big smile

However, if you petition CCP to split off the Industrial side of EVE code into its own game like DUST...well maybe everyone will be happier and you can try prove you point about crafting players NOT being a money sink for MMOs.

The parts of EVE could still be connected by a common market like DUST. And there would certainly be the equivalent of orbital bombardment when industrial corps clash over territory (probably barge and POS bombing). But likely only occasional interest after the initial introductory thrill.




Aurora SunBelle wrote:
DG Athonille wrote:
Samsara Nolte wrote:
Well - considering your chart Cataclysmic Variables are disliked second to only Black Hole and your idea to fix that is keep it exactly the same except for a nerf on the one attribute you shouldn´t have touched "Remote Capacitor Transmitter amount" the sole reason for the few who are living in there is that their carriers are pretty good inside - and after this change everybody living inside in one is pretty much flying them out, well except the ones needed in higher class holes for escalations.

No matter how hard i try to find any reason at all, that someone not already living in a cataclysmic is wanna live in one now, im unable to -
without any exaggeration i think you just created the new "Black Hole"


Agreed - the new cata bonuses and debuffs make no sense as proposed. The existing debuff pushes fleets towards remote rep versus local rep (and the implications for dreads vs carriers), and now you propose adding another debuff that would hamstring sustained remote rep? How is this promoting content creation, other than making our residents in cata systems easy prey? How does the proposed changes balance cata systems? They were already mostly disliked, but usable for remote rep fleets. Nerfing remote rep fleets just makes them completely disliked IMO.

Overall these changes smack of promoting full time PvP gameplay and offer nothing to individuals or groups that are PvE-centric. While the intro went to great lengths to paint a picture of not forcing players out of j-space, I think that is exactly what will occur for those individuals and corps that prefer a PvE-centric game play and selected specific WH systems to settle and operate in that fashion. Yes, PvP is *always* a possibility, however, making the system largely untenable except for large corporations and large fleets will push small corporations out IMO.

This is how I feel. My group is more PVE-centric. We aren't looking for fights but some of us will engage if provoked. But largely we just want to be left alone. It really takes away the fun for a lot of newer players to build something and then have it smashed right off the bat because... "pvp is the best thing ever lets go smash some new players stuff!" mentality. It really seems that this is what CCP is promoting now with these changes. I am concerned that as a PVE-player I will be reduced to hi-sec play only unless I somehow join a large alliance and want to continuous fight instead of actually playing industry.
Adarnof
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
Birds of Prey.
#151 - 2014-08-08 19:49:30 UTC
To harp on cataclysmics once more,

Take a look around the game. Spider-tanking carriers are the ideal fleet comp these days in nullsec (do they even field subcaps any more?). The flaw you're addressing isn't with cataclysmics, it's with carriers in general. I'd advise you don't punish the wormhole community and instead take a hard look at them as a platform.
Ghost RedFox
KEEP BACK
#152 - 2014-08-08 22:18:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone! This thread is for all of your feedback and discussion surrounding the wormhole effect changes from our recently released dev blog.


Good day. CCP Fozzie do not you think that you are completely kill a class of WH as a pulsar? after all shild format ships and so the greatest signature in the game, and you make it even more, thereby increasing the number of times of applied thereon damage, as well shild ships suffer congenital problem cap be stable - and you amplify effect of Nos that automatically leads to dead shild format in a pulsar - for which and was created by this type of WH.
In fact, it contributes only part of pvp and it armor fleets that specialize in Nos and murder Shild format, while in the WH designed for fleets armor you step position armor fleet - but as not to be destroyed this fleet.

Thank you for your attention, and please forgive me for any errors during the translete.
Spillrag
Neurotoxin Control
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#153 - 2014-08-09 02:36:03 UTC
Michael1995 wrote:
So from reading the wormhole effect changes, you'll be removing the targeting range bonus on pulsars?


Is this true?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#154 - 2014-08-09 02:50:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Adarnof wrote:
To harp on cataclysmics once more,

Take a look around the game. Spider-tanking carriers are the ideal fleet comp these days in nullsec (do they even field subcaps any more?). The flaw you're addressing isn't with cataclysmics, it's with carriers in general. I'd advise you don't punish the wormhole community and instead take a hard look at them as a platform.


As much as I hate to suggest it, it would make more sense to make it a penalty to energy rr range in CVs than amount (given cv generally has a boost to remote assistance amount), bringing tactics back into play to break the energy spider.
Adarnof
Kingsparrow Wormhole Division
Birds of Prey.
#155 - 2014-08-09 03:27:51 UTC
Rroff wrote:
As much as I hate to suggest it, it would make more sense to make it a penalty to energy rr range in CVs than amount (given cv generally has a boost to remote assistance amount), bringing tactics back into play to break the energy spider.


We've been discussing this as well. Allows smart FCs to strategically bump carriers out of cap range while not eliminating the mechanism entirely.
Threll Lornax
The Sleepless Vanguard
#156 - 2014-08-09 06:34:33 UTC
Adarnof wrote:
Rroff wrote:
As much as I hate to suggest it, it would make more sense to make it a penalty to energy rr range in CVs than amount (given cv generally has a boost to remote assistance amount), bringing tactics back into play to break the energy spider.


We've been discussing this as well. Allows smart FCs to strategically bump carriers out of cap range while not eliminating the mechanism entirely.


I like this idea a lot more. The fleets are still viable and smaller groups are not hurt, but the fleets will have a new weakness a smart and prepared enemy can take advantage of.
Amy Farrah FowIer
SKULL AND B0NES
#157 - 2014-08-09 07:40:08 UTC
1. If you buff the "Black Hole Effect" you make it more interesting for large groups. Black hole was a chance for smaller
Corporations.

2. Allow the possibilty to attach/reinforce a WH system. The attacker should not have the initiative at all in EVE.

3. Allow the owner to upgrade a Wormhole. The owner should be able to get some advantages that deter "fun attacks" or
make them unattraktive at least.
rvbk
Regicide and Sororitas
#158 - 2014-08-09 07:55:43 UTC
не хочется вызывать бурления говн и прочее , но все равно , вопрос : у меня две учетки на платной подписке , есть ли шанс доиграть до обновления гиперион , а по выходу обновления отключить подписку , заблокировать аккаунты и самое главное - получить назад деньги за оставшиеся проплаченными около двух месяцев игрового времени ? я прекрасно понимаю , что многим понравится очередное обновление , но лично мне - нет . и я не хочу платить исландцам за игру , которая лично мне перестает нравится все больше и больше. У меня большая просьба - не начинать вокруг моего поста вышеназванное бурление , я не хочу делать классический "вброс на вентилятор" , просто хочу уточнить финансовый аспект
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#159 - 2014-08-09 09:46:06 UTC
Amy Farrah FowIer wrote:
1. If you buff the "Black Hole Effect" you make it more interesting for large groups. Black hole was a chance for smaller
Corporations.

2. Allow the possibilty to attach/reinforce a WH system. The attacker should not have the initiative at all in EVE.

3. Allow the owner to upgrade a Wormhole. The owner should be able to get some advantages that deter "fun attacks" or
make them unattraktive at least.



Nothing about black holes encourages a corporation of any size to be there. There were 5 penalties and one "bonus" that in conjuntion with the penalties was just a penalty too. The change is the best thing for them, it creates a totally unique pvp environment that gives no bonuses to big fleets, helps snipers and missile users and most importantly doesn't particularly favour armour or shield doctrines. You'd think so, but no. Also diminished returns from using lots of Lokis means that particular meta has to change as well. Do expect to see many more farming corps establish themselves in black holes as if the missile explosion velocity does scale upwards to capital missiles it will give phoenix's a particularly solid platform to be fielded in as well.

Attacker needs the initiative. It's the principle of unilateral aggression.

If you're getting attacked for fun and losing then it says a lot about both sides of the battlefield doesn't it.
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#160 - 2014-08-09 09:50:33 UTC
rvbk wrote:
не хочется вызывать бурления говн и прочее , но все равно , вопрос : у меня две учетки на платной подписке , есть ли шанс доиграть до обновления гиперион , а по выходу обновления отключить подписку , заблокировать аккаунты и самое главное - получить назад деньги за оставшиеся проплаченными около двух месяцев игрового времени ? я прекрасно понимаю , что многим понравится очередное обновление , но лично мне - нет . и я не хочу платить исландцам за игру , которая лично мне перестает нравится все больше и больше. У меня большая просьба - не начинать вокруг моего поста вышеназванное бурление , я не хочу делать классический "вброс на вентилятор" , просто хочу уточнить финансовый аспект



do not want to cause churning **** and stuff, but still, the question is: I have two uchetki on a paid subscription, is there a chance to finish the update hyperion, and on the output update to disable the subscription block accounts and the most important thing - to get money back for the remaining proplachennymi about two months of game time? I understand that many will like the next update, but for me personally - no. and I do not want to pay the Icelanders for a game that I personally no longer like it more and more. I have a big request - do not start around my post above-mentioned wildness, I do not want to do the classic "stuffing on a fan", I just want to clarify the financial aspect