These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Mass-Based Spawn Distance After WH Jumps

First post First post First post
Author
Faren Shalni
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1101 - 2014-08-19 13:05:14 UTC
They probs will release this change and then lock the thread and all subsequent threads to stop us complaining about it.

I find it a real shame that I like the thought behind the change (making rolling less safe) but this change is just not the way to do it. It's like performing an operation where the surgeon uses an axe instead of a scalpel.

So Much Space

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#1102 - 2014-08-19 13:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Faren Shalni wrote:
They probs will release this change and then lock the thread and all subsequent threads to stop us complaining about it.

I find it a real shame that I like the thought behind the change (making rolling less safe) but this change is just not the way to do it. It's like performing an operation where the surgeon uses an axe instead of a scalpel.


Very nearly there, it is more like the surgeon tipping the table vertical, spinning it and throwing axes at the patient,

Whilst loudly proclaiming, " roll up roll up, who feels lucky today!"

Well, if past experience is a guide, we will probably get the response that we are now reducing the size of the axes, and spinning the table a little faster. And adding a cosmetic change such as the table squeaks a little louder and sparks fly out. Everyone likes sparks, right?

After response from players, CCP heard to mutter "ungrateful lot"Evil

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#1103 - 2014-08-19 13:34:15 UTC
Faren Shalni wrote:
It's like performing an operation where the (BLIND) surgeon uses an axe instead of a scalpel.

FTFY.

Lol

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#1104 - 2014-08-19 13:35:39 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Faren Shalni wrote:
It's like performing an operation where the (BLIND) surgeon uses an axe instead of a scalpel.

FTFY.

Lol



Just combine the two posts above yours.ShockedLol

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#1105 - 2014-08-19 14:32:36 UTC
If this change goes through, even in its updated form, at the very least everything with a covops cloak needs to have some risk of spawning within 2km of the hole, like with the current mechanics.

Still think there's nothing inherently wrong with rolling holes whether for defense or to find content and its not cool to make the process overly time consuming and tedious (not to mention even more dangerous). I only have difficulty with the idea of insta-rolling holes with multiple caps/orcas/BSs.

Perhaps leave the spawning distance thing as-is so covops and nully/cloaky T3's can still be caught. But put in a new deployable that can re-open player collapsed holes if deployed within half hour or so of collapse. The re-opened hole would have some sort of invulnerability to ships jumping through from the other side for a short time but with a restrictive mass limit for the side that has the deployable. Say, enough mass to get a strike group through and back but not an overwhelming force. This would even the odds if we're talking about a large wormhole pvp alliance vs a small(er) one. Would also mean more small gang fights.


The deployable should be warpable or easily probed down and have low HP so it can be destroyed by low DPS ships even if guarded but if it is destroyed the re-opened hole collapses immediately (give noob pilots the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty and take one for the team lol). This could trap players on both sides and make things very interesting. If the deploying side overstays their welcome the re-opened hole can lose invulnerability and be re-collapsed as per normal mechanics.

Deployable won't work on any k-space to w-space holes, would be w-space to w-space only.


Nolak Ataru
Unsanitary Landfill
#1106 - 2014-08-19 15:02:31 UTC
Edgar Strangelove wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Edgar Strangelove wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
I suspect that CCP hopes that instead it gets people to venture forth into the chain looking for what lies beyond the next wormhole is something smaller than a capital or battleship.


Like, say, uh...a T3? Just think: wormhole corps planning strategies that carefully pick a few high-mass ships or a single capital and forming a low-mass fleet around it instead. Madness, I know.


If you take just a T3 and Guardian gang out and someone drops a carrier and/or a dread with a T3 fleet on you, you will wish pretty damn quickly that you brought your own carrier.

I can't wait for CCP to implement the same mass-based changes to cynosural fields and then watch all the null-tards who post here under the impression that they know more about wormholes than, say, AHARM, NOHO, or HK, turn around and blast it as a bad change for null.


Either your sarcasm detector is broken or mine is, because I'm 99% certain we're agreeing here.


Mine. It appears I was drunk at the time as I have no recollection of posting that...
Valenthe de Celine
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1107 - 2014-08-19 16:04:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Valenthe de Celine
Currently every wormhole has three random aspects to it.

Location, within a range, that wormhole could be to highsec, lowsec, nullsec, C1-3 space, c4-5 space, or C6 space. Pick one range of systems, and that wormhole can be from any of those systems in existence.

TIme, as wormholes have a set duration of existence, with a variation of a percentage that we, as players, have worked out through years of trial and error. The only reliable method for determining when a wormhole will collapse is to sit and observe the shift to "End of Life" where the hours remaining becomes a very narrow span of time.

Mass to collapse is also a fundamental variable, and the third and final random number generator cycling for that signature, which is why players have learned that larger mass on the final craft through the hole can reliably close it (with the ship ending on the correct side) with a higher margin of probability of it ended up back in it's home system.

Now CCP believe we have adapted too effectively to the three random variables already built into every wormhole, so they are adding a fourth, spawn distance. CCP did this without consulting the elite group of players that has determined the variables and worked around three previous attempts at affecting their existence, so much so that the hostile and unforgiving space we exist in has been deemed "safe" by some.

Someone out there believes that wormholes are too safe, or too predictable, or too understood. If any of these variables were added to a gate system, I believe all of known space would shed tears of blood. Wormholers wouldn't really care. So please, don't act like you know W-space when K--space has lost the effect of trying to kill you. Wormholes still work at it, and with sleepers, most players not prepared for a fight to the death end up floating in their pod. Wormholes are littered with the corpses of K-spacers, and many times I'll find a random frozen corpse to announce that someone from K-space entered our domain. Yet apparently its become too safe.

This mass affecting variable spawn distance will only hamper wormhole residents who care to stay long enough to adapt, and we will, but the group as a whole becomes less. The game will suffer as the numbers willing to adapt to yet another change to the fundamental rules that govern our existence will result in a great number of experienced players leaving. CCP doesn't train anyone about wormholes. Veteran players do. You are losing your veteran player base to your own arrogance, and that is losing your future of this sector of space. Your knowledge base thins from every veteran you upset via a policy change, or disloyal moderation.

And yes, I know I am but a wee newb without skills, so my talk of veterans is directed at my betters.Many of them refuse to debase themselves to speak in the forums. A few have been pushed into it, in the hopes that this chance will be repealed before it happens, but CCP doesn't acknowledge that.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#1108 - 2014-08-19 16:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Valenthe de Celine wrote:
Currently every wormhole has three random aspects to it.

Location, within a range, that wormhole could be to highsec, lowsec, nullsec, C1-3 space, c4-5 space, or C6 space. Pick one range of systems, and that wormhole can be from any of those systems in existence.

TIme, as wormholes have a set duration of existence, with a variation of a percentage that we, as players, have worked out through years of trial and error. The only reliable method for determining when a wormhole will collapse is to sit and observe the shift to "End of Life" where the hours remaining becomes a very narrow span of time.

Mass to collapse is also a fundamental variable, and the third and final random number generator cycling for that signature, which is why players have learned that larger mass on the final craft through the hole can reliably close it (with the ship ending on the correct side) with a higher margin of probability of it ended up back in it's home system.

Now CCP believe we have adapted too effectively to the three random variables already built into every wormhole, so they are adding a fourth, spawn distance. CCP did this without consulting the elite group of players that has determined the variables and worked around three previous attempts at affecting their existence, so much so that the hostile and unforgiving space we exist in has been deemed "safe" by some.

Someone out there believes that wormholes are too safe, or too predictable, or too understood. If any of these variables were added to a gate system, I believe all of known space would shed tears of blood. Wormholers wouldn't really care. So please, don't act like you know W-space when K--space has lost the effect of trying to kill you. Wormholes still work at it, and with sleepers, most players not prepared for a fight to the death end up floating in their pod. Wormholes are littered with the corpses of K-spacers, and many times I'll find a random frozen corpse to announce that someone from K-space entered our domain. Yet apparently its become too safe.

This mass affecting variable spawn distance will only hamper wormhole residents who care to stay long enough to adapt, and we will, but the group as a whole becomes less. The game will suffer as the numbers willing to adapt to yet another change to the fundamental rules that govern our existence will result in a great number of experienced players leaving. CCP doesn't train anyone about wormholes. Veteran players do. You are losing your veteran player base to your own arrogance, and that is losing your future of this sector of space. Your knowledge base thins from every veteran you upset via a policy change, or disloyal moderation.

And yes, I know I am but a wee newb without skills, so my talk of veterans is directed at my betters.Many of them refuse to debase themselves to speak in the forums. A few have been pushed into it, in the hopes that this chance will be repealed before it happens, but CCP doesn't acknowledge that.


Nicely put, as you say we have adapted to the randomness inherent in these three cases, this is randomness though to modify the presentation of the mechanic. This being the case means that players can learn and adapt to the random factor as it does not change the core mechanism.

This change however is different, the only way of dealing with the mechanic is one of deciding to jump or not jump. Once you have decided to place your fate in the hands of the luck Gods, you are just along for the ride.

It is literally the same as implementing a change where whenever you jump through the wormhole you have a percentage chance of self destructing when encountering hostiles.

Where you come out in a great sphere surrounding the wormhole is out of your hands, and your fate is dependent on whether you are lucky enough in your and your fleets landing position. You may well be delivered into their waiting laps cut off from support.

If we jumped and landed out of return jump range, all together, we may disagree with the need of it, but we would learn to adapt.

There is no way of adapting to this as currently proposed. None. Just "do you feel lucky" ? sometimes you will be able to burn back with the right fit, sometimes warp away and back, and other times you are just "unlucky" and there is no way whatsoever to change that.

That is the worst imaginable piece of games design if you want to retain and encourage customers.
You have just developed game aversion therapy.
Good work CCPWhat?

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1109 - 2014-08-19 17:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
I dunno why people focus so much on the risk factor - sure when there is someone to take advantage of that window of vulnerability there is an extra risk factor there but by and large when people are collapsing wormholes there simply isn't anyone there or anyone in an immediate position to take advantage of that. Sure sometimes people roll in the face of entities that they couldn't deal with, occasionally an orca gets away, etc. but as general life in wormholes go those are edge cases.

This change will also tend to strengthen the need to be part of a larger entity and in a small but not insignificant way errode wormholes towards being more like nullsec by reducing the ability to manipulate wormhole space so as you aren't forced to engage larger entities on an open battlefield which tends to more often than not come down to a pure numbers game.

The changes that are needed IMO would be to firstly incentivise people not to collapse in the first place (i.e. random chance to spawn higher value NPCs or containers/items in sites if the static is healthy, etc.) and then maybe a change to the final shrink whereby it becomes some sort of "weak" non-static wormhole for a limited time without holding the static open or introducing needless delays. (Not really a fan of that kind of mechanic but there is some intermediate potential there maybe).
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#1110 - 2014-08-19 17:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Rroff wrote:
I dunno why people focus so much on the risk factor - sure when there is someone to take advantage of that window of vulnerability there is an extra risk factor there but by and large when people are collapsing wormholes there simply isn't anyone there or anyone in an immediate position to take advantage of that. Sure sometimes people roll in the face of entities that they couldn't deal with, occasionally an orca gets away, etc. but as general life in wormholes go those are edge cases.

This change will also tend to strengthen the need to be part of a larger entity and in a small but not insignificant way errode wormholes towards being more like nullsec by reducing the ability to manipulate wormhole space so as you aren't forced to engage larger entities on an open battlefield which tends to more often than not come down to a pure numbers game.

The changes that are needed IMO would be to firstly incentivise people not to collapse in the first place (i.e. random chance to spawn higher value NPCs or containers/items in sites if the static is healthy, etc.) and then maybe a change to the final shrink whereby it becomes some sort of "weak" non-static wormhole for a limited time without holding the static open or introducing needless delays. (Not really a fan of that kind of mechanic but there is some intermediate potential there maybe).

Yes, other incentives to encourage one not to need to close holes to seek combat, would be promising.

But please understand, this is absolutely not just about risk factor, while increasing risk will affect the decision as to whether people roll holes or not, this proposal goes way way beyond that.

The risk is not that you may encounter more opposition, or harder battles, it is whether you randomly get dropped into a position where NOTHING can save you. That cannot be mitigated against by fitting skill or tactics. THAT is what is so greatly concerning.

If CCP ONLY wanted to increase risk, and encourage combat, then they could have simply said that capitals would jump 5km outside of the range they could jump back and as the hole was destabilised by such a large mass then all the ships that followed would land on the heavy ship.
That would have encouraged the development of a whole new range of tactics for offensive and defensive closing.

But no they wanted all the ships to spawn scattered randomly across a wide sphere where some would end up easy victims.

See the difference?

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#1111 - 2014-08-19 17:52:53 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Rroff wrote:
I dunno why people focus so much on the risk factor - sure when there is someone to take advantage of that window of vulnerability there is an extra risk factor there but by and large when people are collapsing wormholes there simply isn't anyone there or anyone in an immediate position to take advantage of that. Sure sometimes people roll in the face of entities that they couldn't deal with, occasionally an orca gets away, etc. but as general life in wormholes go those are edge cases.

This change will also tend to strengthen the need to be part of a larger entity and in a small but not insignificant way errode wormholes towards being more like nullsec by reducing the ability to manipulate wormhole space so as you aren't forced to engage larger entities on an open battlefield which tends to more often than not come down to a pure numbers game.

The changes that are needed IMO would be to firstly incentivise people not to collapse in the first place (i.e. random chance to spawn higher value NPCs or containers/items in sites if the static is healthy, etc.) and then maybe a change to the final shrink whereby it becomes some sort of "weak" non-static wormhole for a limited time without holding the static open or introducing needless delays. (Not really a fan of that kind of mechanic but there is some intermediate potential there maybe).

Yes, other incentives to encourage one not to need to close holes to seek combat, would be promising.

But please understand, this is absolutely not just about risk factor, while increasing risk will affect the decision as to whether people roll holes or not, this proposal goes way way beyond that.

The risk is not that you may encounter more opposition, or harder battles, it is whether you randomly get dropped into a position where NOTHING can save you. That cannot be mitigated against by fitting skill or tactics. THAT is what is so greatly concerning.

If CCP ONLY wanted to increase risk, and encourage combat, then they could have simply said that capitals would jump 5km outside of the range they could jump back and as the hole was destabilised by such a large mass then all the ships that followed would land on the heavy ship.

But no they wanted all the ships to spawn scattered randomly across a wide sphere where some would end up easy victims.

See the difference?


I appreciate your position, truly. It does make me wonder, just as an academic exercise, what do you think wormhole residents, and specifically cap pilots, would be like today if this mechanic had been in place from the inception of wormholes. Would this even be an issue? Would we simply see wormhole space as one where you do not jump caps into hostile holes? Would the inevitable blueballing presence of a cap fleet on a home hole simply have been the death of high-end wormhole combat?

I am admittedly far from engaging in cap combat and this change seems mostly significantly impacting that level of wormhole space. I don't forsee it affecting significantly life in sub-capital wormhole space short of the occasional lost Orca for those groups caught in the process without proper support. I'm trying not to play the game of "it doesn't affect me so who cares". Wormhole space is perhaps the only space in EVE where any element of randomness exists. This change does enter some before untouched territory with regards to how that randomness affects in game play. By a similar token though, many players ask specifically for randomness in their PvE content. It is entirely possible that such random elements could result in no-win situations for a given pilot if they had chosen to enter into that environment with a less than capable ship for all possible outcomes. Is that all that different than a cap pilot rolling the dice jumping into a mechanic that they know as the possibility of being a no-win outcome, especially since that outcome is entirely player dependent at that point by requiring a hostile force engage the cap before it returns through the hole.


Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1112 - 2014-08-19 17:55:50 UTC
thebringer wrote:
The farmers will just POS up and log if there is a threat instead of rolling the hole, therefore wasting both the 'farmers' and the PVPer's time, combined with the increased length of time it takes to roll a hole means less content for all participants...


I think that this snip perfectly sums up the most probable consequences of the spawn distance changes, even when you take into account the other changes on SiSi (specifically the K162 delay).

People respond to incentives. For all groups of people living in wormholes, this change is a very strong negative incentive to rolling a wormhole:

•Farming groups whose primary purpose for living in wormholes is making ISK are getting an all-together negative incentive package for living in wormholes from this expansion. Rolling their static hole becomes much more dangerous (What CCP wants), but they can be caught while farming much more easily due to the K162 spawn changes (What CCP wants?). However, the frequency of farming will decrease significantly, as the likelihood of being connected to a hostile entity is higher due to the much-more-frequent spawns of wormholes and the increased average cost of rolling a hole (Ships lost per hole rolled over a given period).

If the farming group is connected to a hostile entity, no farming and no rolling will occur. This will lower the amount of ISK generated via wormhole content (Almost assuredly what CCP wants), but will dramatically decrease content for all other wormhole dwellers, the next group most:

•Large entities that farm and pvp are largely unaffected by the spawn distance changes... Directly. They will still be able to efficiently roll holes with much less risk than a smaller entity, and can absorb losses more easily when accidents do happen. There will, however, be less overall content for them because one of their 'targets', the farming groups, will be fewer in number and farming less often. On the upside, the K162 delay changes make logoff traps incredibly effective, as if the farming group fails to place someone on their newly-rolled static or that person fails to notice a wormhole activation, it becomes trivial for a scan alt to scan a way in for a site-running gank fleet without the target's knowledge.

All that having been said, the large pvp'ing/farming entities are still getting a net negative incentive to living in wormholes from these changes--There will be less farmers who do less farming (many may leave if Incursions become relatively more profitable), and less of the next group residing and operating in wormhole space:

•Smaller entities that farm and pvp. I further specify that these entities will take most fights that (initially/based on intel) are fair. Because these groups generally live in lower class wormholes and/or do not have as many members as larger groups, their incentive package is also quite negative from the spawn distance change. They risk more of their overall net worth in order to secure their hole for farming, and since rolling takes significantly more time with these changes they lose a non-negligible amount of efficiency. Furthermore, they are more likely to not have the ability to place a scout on their new, unopened static to ensure that no scan alt has zipped out to find a way in for a predator, which significantly increases their risk factor in addition to the other increases discussed.

Because these small groups will be living a much riskier life, they will be pressured toward clumping into larger and larger groups in order to stay viable. This isn't an entirely negative change, as the game should encourage and reward playing in a commensurately larger group, but it's fair to say that most small to medium-sized wormhole organizations stay that way because they choose to, not because they are unable to.

The net effect on these groups will be a strong disincentive to living in wormholes. Their way of life may not even be viable--I even think it likely that they won't be able to make enough ISK to support their pve and pvp habits. They will largely leave wormhole space or gravitate to the already-larger groups. The end result, I think, will be an extinction of these groups over time.

~~~

So, above I've outlined my case for why virtually all wormhole dwellers are getting a net-negative incentive package for living in wormholes. Below I'd like to propose my (poor) suggestion to achieving what CCP wants from this expansion, ie, less ISK, more risk, and more content for wormholes and the people that live there. I say poor because I don't think there exists an easy change--People respond much better to positive incentives than negative incentives, but it's difficult to further incentivize an already quite-welly incentivized activity. What I mean is, as it stands, it is pretty easy to live in wormhole space and stay ISK-positive.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#1113 - 2014-08-19 18:13:31 UTC
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:
thebringer wrote:
The farmers will just POS up and log if there is a threat instead of rolling the hole, therefore wasting both the 'farmers' and the PVPer's time, combined with the increased length of time it takes to roll a hole means less content for all participants...


I think that this snip perfectly sums up the most probable consequences of the spawn distance changes, even when you take into account the other changes on SiSi (specifically the K162 delay).

People respond to incentives. For all groups of people living in wormholes, this change is a very strong negative incentive to rolling a wormhole:



I just don't see it.

Farming groups: How many currently roll a hole away from a hostile active connection vs. POS up/log off? It has to be a very small percentage. Most hole rolling by dedicated farming groups is likely done with quiet connections after which they farm in peace, watching for new connections. This is a net zero change as I don't see it impacting their decision to roll a hole. It is far more based on what is on the other side (hostile or not) than how many trips it will take or how many people. By this token, any negative effect from POS up/log off is no different than it is today. Any random connection will be immediately considered hostile and result in the fleet warping away. A well prepared entity rolling into such a hole (see below) could take advantage and get kills previously not possible because of the old K162 mechanic. The new K162 mechanic actually favors roaming fleets with prepared tactics vs. lone scouts due to the chance of catching a fleet unprepared or attempting to flee and unable to before the bubble lands.

Large PvE/PvP: Without a noticeable change to farming group behavior, these groups will benefit strongly from the deeper wormhole chains. Every new random connection can open into another hole with a new unopened static thus presenting additional changes to pop into a new hole and catch someone unaware, especially with the new K162 mechanism. In addition, if large PvE/PvP groups are indeed roaming chains, they have more chances to interact in organic wormhole chains. See above regarding roaming fleets and the new K162 mechanics. Negatives here focus on cap combat on wormholes.

Smaller PvE/PvP: The choice here is rolling with an Orca or rolling with battleships and again, the primary motivator continues to be are there hostiles on the other side. Most groups of this size I would imagine will start to roll with battleships OR roll in one pass vs. a multi-pass Orca/BS combination. I don't see this change affecting small groups in regards to rolling in any significant form. If anything, the increased randomness will more negatively impact them by opening up more and more connections to them with potential roaming entities (see above) and thus bringing fights they deem "unfair" resulting in POS up/log off more frequently. It is this aspect of the change (more randomness) that I feel is the most harmful though that could be addressed through a future rebalancing of lower class wormhole rewards to incite people to live in this space. PvP oriented groups will find this change beneficial.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1114 - 2014-08-19 18:14:48 UTC
Obil Que wrote:

I appreciate your position, truly. It does make me wonder, just as an academic exercise, what do you think wormhole residents, and specifically cap pilots, would be like today if this mechanic had been in place from the inception of wormholes. Would this even be an issue? Would we simply see wormhole space as one where you do not jump caps into hostile holes? Would the inevitable blueballing presence of a cap fleet on a home hole simply have been the death of high-end wormhole combat?

I am admittedly far from engaging in cap combat and this change seems mostly significantly impacting that level of wormhole space. I don't forsee it affecting significantly life in sub-capital wormhole space short of the occasional lost Orca for those groups caught in the process without proper support. I'm trying not to play the game of "it doesn't affect me so who cares". Wormhole space is perhaps the only space in EVE where any element of randomness exists. This change does enter some before untouched territory with regards to how that randomness affects in game play. By a similar token though, many players ask specifically for randomness in their PvE content. It is entirely possible that such random elements could result in no-win situations for a given pilot if they had chosen to enter into that environment with a less than capable ship for all possible outcomes. Is that all that different than a cap pilot rolling the dice jumping into a mechanic that they know as the possibility of being a no-win outcome, especially since that outcome is entirely player dependent at that point by requiring a hostile force engage the cap before it returns through the hole.




Hard to really know for sure - I suspect though it would have resulted in less small to medium sized groups in C5/6 space and more of a gravitation towards a small number of larger power blocs instead.
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1115 - 2014-08-19 18:25:23 UTC
With that in mind, my suggestions are pretty radical and I'm not near as confident in them as I am in the above exigencies, but here goes:

1. No changes to the current spawn distance mechanism.
2. Instead of having a variable mass on wormholes and an increase in ship-jump size as you go up in class, wormholes would function liked this:

•C1-C2 wormholes have a max ship size of battlecruiser passing through them, but ships cruiser-size and smaller have no effect on the mass of a wormhole. 5 minute polarization timer, and jumping through any wormhole gives a timer to up-size ships, but down-size ships have the current timer. However, two passes of a battlecruiser would close the hole.

•C3-C4 wormholes have a max ship size of battleship passing through them, but ships battlecruiser-size and smaller have no effect on the mass of a wormhole. 5 minute polarization timer, and jumping through any wormhole gives a timer to up-size ships, but down-size ships have the current timer. However, two passes of a battleship would close the hole.

•C5-C6 wormholes have a max ship size of capital passing through them, but ships battleship-size and smaller have no effect on the mass of a wormhole. 5 minute polarization timer, and jumping through any wormhole gives a timer to up-size ships, but down-size ships have the current timer. However, two passes of a capital would close the hole.

•High-sec, low-sec, and null-sec connections would obey the rules of the corresponding system

•Non-covops ships may not activate a cloak while on grid with a wormhole.

These changes do not disproportionately burden smaller or larger corps, nor do they favor farming groups over pvp groups. Rolling any wormhole comes with the risk of, at most, twice the value of the largest ship allowed to pass through the hole and only minimally requires 1 person. However, you are at risk for a much greater amount of time and to roll safely, you would need a fleet of smaller ships on standby ready to respond to a gank attempt on your 5-minute-stranded up-sized ship which can't cloak while at the wormhole.

Smaller groups could force fights on their side of the hole by sending through a hero alt and either ejecting so they could bring the pod back, or die a gruesome death. Call it a tithe to Bob. Having the home-field advantage would significantly level the playing field between different-sized groups.

Larger groups can still rage-roll to find content, but smart positioning by the smaller force alleviates some of the blob aspect, as at least you're getting blobbed by ships commensurate with your income.

Farming groups can still merrily farm away, but are at increased risk of ganks due to the delayed K162 spawn change.

Overall, these proposed changes, or some iteration of them, would increase risk of rolling, decrease the amount of ISK generated from wormholes as more ships are blown up, and create more content for all residents by creating a place (the wormhole) where ships tend to congregate. They also somewhat simplify logistics of living in wormhole space.

Finally, these changes create new content by placing positive, ISK-neutral incentives on activities like guarding wormholes if you'd like to protect a chain from being rolled and/or control access through the chain, and... other... stuff?

Now it's your turn to think about the possibilities of this system. I'm tired.
Verisimilidude 001
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1116 - 2014-08-19 18:33:17 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Smaller PvE/PvP: The choice here is rolling with an Orca or rolling with battleships and again, the primary motivator continues to be are there hostiles on the other side. Most groups of this size I would imagine will start to roll with battleships OR roll in one pass vs. a multi-pass Orca/BS combination. I don't see this change affecting small groups in regards to rolling in any significant form. If anything, the increased randomness will more negatively impact them by opening up more and more connections to them with potential roaming entities (see above) and thus bringing fights they deem "unfair" resulting in POS up/log off more frequently. It is this aspect of the change (more randomness) that I feel is the most harmful though that could be addressed through a future rebalancing of lower class wormhole rewards to incite people to live in this space. PvP oriented groups will find this change beneficial.


I snipped out the part that I think is most important to talk about: Smaller-ish groups. These changes have a strong negative incentive for them to live in wormholes, and will encourage the same POS up/log off activity that farming groups do.

Farming groups are net-negative because they can be rage-rolled into and have no idea they're about to get jumped, with no way to defend against it. This will likely change the ISK:Effort ratio enough to favor moving out of wormholes, which creates less content for everyone else.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#1117 - 2014-08-19 18:50:02 UTC
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Smaller PvE/PvP: The choice here is rolling with an Orca or rolling with battleships and again, the primary motivator continues to be are there hostiles on the other side. Most groups of this size I would imagine will start to roll with battleships OR roll in one pass vs. a multi-pass Orca/BS combination. I don't see this change affecting small groups in regards to rolling in any significant form. If anything, the increased randomness will more negatively impact them by opening up more and more connections to them with potential roaming entities (see above) and thus bringing fights they deem "unfair" resulting in POS up/log off more frequently. It is this aspect of the change (more randomness) that I feel is the most harmful though that could be addressed through a future rebalancing of lower class wormhole rewards to incite people to live in this space. PvP oriented groups will find this change beneficial.


I snipped out the part that I think is most important to talk about: Smaller-ish groups. These changes have a strong negative incentive for them to live in wormholes, and will encourage the same POS up/log off activity that farming groups do.

Farming groups are net-negative because they can be rage-rolled into and have no idea they're about to get jumped, with no way to defend against it. This will likely change the ISK:Effort ratio enough to favor moving out of wormholes, which creates less content for everyone else.


Adapt or die. Wormhole space truly only is friendly to smaller groups when they can exercise adequate hole control. It isn't like 300 where a small force is controlling a point of entry, it is entirely based on the concept of isolation and awareness (for both the small group and dedicated farming groups). That isolation is specifically being targeted. Those small and farming groups that can adapt to this more random space through applied effort to close holes and increased awareness of randoms will continue to exist, those that do not...
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#1118 - 2014-08-19 18:52:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Obil Que wrote:
I am admittedly far from engaging in cap combat and this change seems mostly significantly impacting that level of wormhole space. I don't forsee it affecting significantly life in sub-capital wormhole space short of the occasional lost Orca for those groups caught in the process without proper support. I'm trying not to play the game of "it doesn't affect me so who cares". Wormhole space is perhaps the only space in EVE where any element of randomness exists. This change does enter some before untouched territory with regards to how that randomness affects in game play.


I never loved wormhole space for its safety. We ran sites with holes wide open and posted scouts on them so that if someone was coming, we had time to see if we needed to reship or if we could take them with the fleet we had. I'm just saying that so that it's clear that safety and predictability are not features to me, not in J-space.

The problem with this proposed feature is that it trades one kind of predictability for another kind, which reliably favors large fleets of smaller ships and which very nearly requires them for closing large holes, and; it introduces a new kind of safety and predictability in that you'll be able to jump through a WH and be 100% sure that the hole can't decloak you on the other side.

If it were just increased randomness, I'd be fine with it. I said as much in the Dev Blog thread. At least that would be more hassle for everyone, instead of directly incentivizing larger fleets.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#1119 - 2014-08-19 19:02:44 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
I am admittedly far from engaging in cap combat and this change seems mostly significantly impacting that level of wormhole space. I don't forsee it affecting significantly life in sub-capital wormhole space short of the occasional lost Orca for those groups caught in the process without proper support. I'm trying not to play the game of "it doesn't affect me so who cares". Wormhole space is perhaps the only space in EVE where any element of randomness exists. This change does enter some before untouched territory with regards to how that randomness affects in game play.


I never loved wormhole space for its safety. We ran sites with holes wide open and posted scouts on them so that if someone was coming, we had time to see if we needed to reship or if we could take them with the fleet we had. I'm just saying that so that it's clear that safety and predictability are not features to me, not in J-space.

The problem with this proposed feature is that it trades one kind of predictability for another kind, which reliably favors large fleets of smaller ships and which very nearly requires them for closing large holes, and; it introduces a new kind of safety and predictability in that you'll be able to jump through a WH and be 100% sure that the hole can't decloak you on the other side.

If it were just increased randomness, I'd be fine with it. I said as much in the Dev Blog thread. At least that would be more hassle for everyone, instead of directly incentivizing larger fleets.


I agree. I think this is where the end result is. Larger fully capable gank fleets flown by the larger PvP entities who, instead of rolling holes, now jump the chain looking for targets. It doesn't have to be a blob fest per se, just a fleet capable of dealing with the site runners it is likely to come across. The fleet that can, with a degree of speed, complete their dscan sweep and warp before the site runner can notice the new signature and get his fleet into warp will get kills. This is not entirely a bad thing for EvE (roaming fleets) but unless more is done to provide incentive to the site runners, an uptick in ganking will inevitably result in a comparable decrease in site runners with the obvious chain reaction effect. This is far more the result of the K162 changes that PvP corps have been begging for than anything else. I only hope that it has the effect they desire in the long term.

Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#1120 - 2014-08-19 19:32:25 UTC
Verisimilidude 001 wrote:

Farming groups are net-negative because they can be rage-rolled into and have no idea they're about to get jumped, with no way to defend against it. This will likely change the ISK:Effort ratio enough to favor moving out of wormholes, which creates less content for everyone else.


So for the last 6 months there was everyone complaining about those farmers and how they added nothing to wormholes. Esp since the NPC API data was taken away. Now all of a sudden everyone wants to keep them because they are content?
Being ok with the proposed changes or not, but arguments should not be shifted around to fit your point every time.