These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#221 - 2014-08-17 23:57:48 UTC
Go to Features and Ideas with that.

Also, no.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
OMEGA REDUX
Last Resort Inn
#222 - 2014-08-18 02:44:34 UTC
Nike Andedare wrote:
When you scan down a wormhole, would it be possible that when the signature gets into green (>75% strength), that instead of the type saying Unstable Wormhole, it would change to the wormhole's code, IE Cosmic Signature, Wormhole, Z971.

It would be nice if it always gave the non-K162 code, but I would be okay with seeing K162 as a type.

hell no. that would guarantee that kspace guys would not even warp to wh types they dont care about thus the k162 never spawning EVER
Laura Agathon
Nothing on Dscan
#223 - 2014-08-18 04:10:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Laura Agathon
OMEGA REDUX wrote:
Nike Andedare wrote:
When you scan down a wormhole, would it be possible that when the signature gets into green (>75% strength), that instead of the type saying Unstable Wormhole, it would change to the wormhole's code, IE Cosmic Signature, Wormhole, Z971.

It would be nice if it always gave the non-K162 code, but I would be okay with seeing K162 as a type.

hell no. that would guarantee that kspace guys would not even warp to wh types they dont care about thus the k162 never spawning EVER



They're changing the K162 spawn too...
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#224 - 2014-08-20 01:53:49 UTC
I apologise if something like this has already come up, but I have a suggestion for an alternate Black Hole effect which I believe will make them much more attractive environments to live in than "kitey missile pvp" ever could...

Temporal Anomalies
Arrow POS towers use up fuel more slowly due to local temporal fluctuations
  • C1 - 5% less POS fuel consumed per cycle
  • C2 - 10% less POS fuel consumed per cycle
  • C3 - 15% less POS fuel consumed per cycle
  • C4 - 20% less POS fuel consumed per cycle
  • C5 - 25% less POS fuel consumed per cycle
  • C6 - 30% less POS fuel consumed per cycle
    • Arrow Cosmic anomalies respawn at a faster than normal rate due to local temporal fluctuations
  • C1 - 5% faster respawning of cosmic anomalies
  • C2 - 10% faster respawning of cosmic anomalies
  • C3 - 15% faster respawning of cosmic anomalies
  • C4 - 20% faster respawning of cosmic anomalies
  • C5 - 25% faster respawning of cosmic anomalies
  • C6 - 30% faster respawning of cosmic anomalies

    • The results of this would be that refuelling your tower(s) would be less of a PITA and making money from your own WH instead of farming your static connection would be more plausible. The first would be beneficial all of the time and the second would be useful some of the time (mostly for smaller WH groups).

    Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
    Ben Ishikela
    #225 - 2014-08-21 17:08:28 UTC
    Well Well, seems like a good balance so far.
    But i dont come around letting you know about this idea: randomly changing Wormhole effects. (Its not about the K-Space effects really. they are only to get Players used to effects early on.) This is all about unique Systems and fighting over particular well ones.

    Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
    Laura Agathon
    Nothing on Dscan
    #226 - 2014-08-21 18:45:38 UTC
    Ben Ishikela wrote:
    Well Well, seems like a good balance so far.
    But i dont come around letting you know about this idea: randomly changing Wormhole effects. (Its not about the K-Space effects really. they are only to get Players used to effects early on.) This is all about unique Systems and fighting over particular well ones.


    No. You said it yourself, "A WH-system can become unfitting over time", so there never will be "particular well ones". Also, terrible idea, if you want variation, pack up and move
    Ben Ishikela
    #227 - 2014-08-21 19:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Ben Ishikela
    Laura Agathon wrote:
    Ben Ishikela wrote:
    Well Well, seems like a good balance so far.
    But i dont come around letting you know about this idea: randomly changing Wormhole effects. (Its not about the K-Space effects really. they are only to get Players used to effects early on.) This is all about unique Systems and fighting over particular well ones.


    No. You said it yourself, "A WH-system can become unfitting over time", so there never will be "particular well ones". Also, terrible idea, if you want variation, pack up and move

    Seams like you misunderstood me. Its not that i get bored by WH. nonono.
    "A WH-system can become unfitting over time" = because the effects that, when changing, can be a hinderance to your gameplay or not the effects you want. And because there might be a better system out there corporations might choose to move.

    EDIT: you might want to post feedback to that post into the forum i posted, so we dont mess this on up.

    Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
    Troubled Basterd
    Island Life Capitalist Bastards
    #228 - 2014-08-22 18:45:34 UTC
    Greetings from a C3 Variable Cataclysmic,

    The last couple of months we have been using spider tanking Domies. With the upcoming changes we're going to get major cap problems. I understand the overpowered cap chain of carriers and logies. But the fact is that there is no use in getting logie in a C1 to C3 Variable cataclysmic. The combat sites are to "easy" and the decrease in profit because of the extra logi pilots makes it non viable in my opinion.

    The extra cap will benefit solo players a very great deal. No need for cap modules, more room for damage projection (as example).

    I'm asking you to pleas not turn the "remote rep" WH in to a solo combat site paradise.


    Greetings,

    Troubled Basterd.
    OMEGA REDUX
    Last Resort Inn
    #229 - 2014-08-22 19:17:54 UTC
    Laura Agathon wrote:
    OMEGA REDUX wrote:
    Nike Andedare wrote:
    When you scan down a wormhole, would it be possible that when the signature gets into green (>75% strength), that instead of the type saying Unstable Wormhole, it would change to the wormhole's code, IE Cosmic Signature, Wormhole, Z971.

    It would be nice if it always gave the non-K162 code, but I would be okay with seeing K162 as a type.

    hell no. that would guarantee that kspace guys would not even warp to wh types they dont care about thus the k162 never spawning EVER



    They're changing the K162 spawn too...

    try reading what was posted instead of assuming.
    OMEGA REDUX
    Last Resort Inn
    #230 - 2014-08-22 19:18:56 UTC
    Ben Ishikela wrote:
    Well Well, seems like a good balance so far.
    But i dont come around letting you know about this idea: randomly changing Wormhole effects. (Its not about the K-Space effects really. they are only to get Players used to effects early on.) This is all about unique Systems and fighting over particular well ones.

    horrible idea
    Valenthe de Celine
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #231 - 2014-08-23 01:55:30 UTC
    OMEGA REDUX wrote:
    Ben Ishikela wrote:
    Well Well, seems like a good balance so far.
    But i dont come around letting you know about this idea: randomly changing Wormhole effects. (Its not about the K-Space effects really. they are only to get Players used to effects early on.) This is all about unique Systems and fighting over particular well ones.

    horrible idea

    Agreed. The true time frame for the duration of the effects that are described in these specialized wormhole environments are extremely stable and long running. Worlds may live and die before they change what their effect is on a solar system. No reason to see these as anything but the static effects we already have in game.

    If you want changes, lets talk about planets actually orbiting their stars in these systems, now THAT would really be something.
    forsot
    Hard Knocks Inc.
    Hard Knocks Citizens
    #232 - 2014-08-25 03:26:19 UTC
    I Just thought about the change to the wolf raynt what happens when you jump a worm hole with significant armor damage? Say you are in a c6 wolf and your ships has lost more then 50% of its armor, when you jump the hole you should be in theory have negative armor hp?

    I haven't been able to test it on sisi but I would prefer not to spontaneously combust next time i jump a wormhole in low armor.
    OMEGA REDUX
    Last Resort Inn
    #233 - 2014-08-25 23:43:51 UTC
    You would still have structure so your ship would not explode. It is completely fine to have negative armor. The negative amount would have to be repaired before you see any of the visible amount getting repaired is the only adverse affect.
    DG Athonille
    Doomheim
    #234 - 2014-08-26 13:59:11 UTC
    Well our C6 Cata has been Fozziefied. Just...fraking...awesome...

    Welcome to the new black hole.

    Could we at least get the effect name changed? Perhaps "Cataclysmic Logi" or "Logi Variable?"

    On the good news side at least we didn't start off the day with 30 of those Goonswarm, err frigate, wormholes swiss-cheesing us.

    =)

    /EndTears
    Andy Landen
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #235 - 2014-08-28 03:51:40 UTC
    WHs bring the opposite effects so why call these black hole whs with such bonuses! Inertia and targeting are hurt, not helped, in black holes. see: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4960485#post4960485

    "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
    DG Athonille
    Doomheim
    #236 - 2014-09-04 02:54:52 UTC
    Well today we got a pile of our remote repping battleships (old Cataclysmic Variable doctrine) out into space and formed a Summoning Cap Chain.

    We were attempting to summon Fozzie so that we could punch him in the nuts Twisted, but it didn't work. It's probably the debuff to cap transfers that broke it.

    We may have to add cynos to each point for it to actually work now...

    Cap Transfer Summoning Spell
    Trinkets friend
    Sudden Buggery
    Sending Thots And Players
    #237 - 2014-10-05 01:11:42 UTC
    8 weeks in to these changes and my feedback is:

    W-R
    A Sigil can still tank 2 x 1200 DPS Thrashers. Just.
    6 Enyo's can RF a POCO in 40 minutes. Lolwut.
    1200 DPS 340K EHP Legions, as predicted.
    4 Enyo's whip 6 BC's with one Execquror's reps on field? Winning!

    Black Hole
    Some interest in 6 Phoenix dread blap doctrine in C5-6 but lack of available hulls and toons thus far has prevented this occurring.
    majority of holes still empty. Lack of any PVP in these holes prevents the stupidity of the web nerf becoming provable.

    Cataclysmic
    Pantheon Archons cap stable. Triage carriers more cap stable.
    RR Domis more cap stable than in normal space.
    Guardians still more cap stable than in normal space.
    No one living there, so can't comment on the PVP.

    Pulsar
    No one to fight, so can't comment on the neuting buffs. Besides, finding it hard to fly a shield Ashimmu due to feeling unclean.

    Red Giant
    Bombs still suck. But since you can get away with using half as many toons to still suck, it takes less people to be active to do absolutely nothing to your foes, as per usual.

    Magnetar
    Hey, you might be able to solo C4 Magnetars in your marauder. GG, Fozzie.
    Again, due to complete lack of anyone to shoot, cannot comment on the TP nerf.

    ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
    Serendipity Lost
    Repo Industries
    #238 - 2014-10-06 11:12:44 UTC
    I think this would be a great time to revisit those fancy wh graphics. Show us the before and after.

    As I recall they were relational graphs, so you don't have to drop your pants and show how populated or unpopulated wh space is. Just show us how the changes affected those pretty colored lines.

    If enough time hasn't passed, could you at least give us a hint as to when 'long enough' will be?