These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Roaming sleepers, collapsing wormholes and the little guy
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-09-04 10:50:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
It's way past time for one of my brilliant wormhole ideas threads and for that i apologize Blink

After the recent changes i have come to the conclusion that although most of the changes were good, one or two essentially nerf wormholes without adding any new and interesting gameplay. However, i don't want to talk about why these features are good or bad, instead i want to suggest some new features that i believe would have solved the problem that some people have with Hyperion.

Proposed new features:

1. Wormhole destabilizer
2. Roaming sleeper
3. Wormhole generator

These three things all come as part of a package so bare with me while i explain what i have in mind.

Wormhole Destabilize (WD)

First on the list is a new high slot ship module that has the power to close a wormhole but this comes at a price. A ship with a WD would warp to a wormhole and begin the destabilization process. However, once a WD is activated on a wormhole, it lights a beacon in space similar to a cyno, allowing any ship on either side of the wormhole to warp to it without scanning. A hunter could then proceed to kill the ship attempting to close the wormhole. The WD will affect roaming sleepers which i'll explain later

Note: The WD could take up to 20 minutes to close a wormhole, it could use massive amounts of capacitor or some isotopes to run and could be use to close frigate wormholes.

Roaming Sleepers

A long requested feature and i'm not sure why CCP haven't implemented it yet... Basically roaming sleepers will act like the gate NPC you see in k-space. Occasionally, they will camp wormhole and attack anyone there, and if there is an offline POS in the system, they will eventually attack that. The new Wormhole destabilizer (mentioned above) will attract roaming sleepers.

Note: Roaming sleepers do not drop salvage or loot. (edit: perhaps they should drop salvage but not blue loot)

Wormhole Generators

Essentially this will allow people to create a second/third static in their system. The generator can only be anchored at the sun and when activated it opens a wormhole on grid to a new system. The generators will require a large amount of fuel while it is activated and after you deactivate it, it takes 15 minutes to close (anyone can activate/deactivate it).

These generators will require a large amount of sleeper salvage to construct, some of which will drop on its destruction. This should help increase the demand for salvage and the level of income will rise across all wormholes. I believe that this would be a great conflict driver.

Note: This device will only have a 16 hour reinforcement timer. (edit: the wormhole generator could create wormholes to the new space CCP is creating)

So there you have it. Yet again i have fixed wormhole space and i await criticism from Jack Miton and his trolling chums. Roll

The question now is, are ccp willing to do something like this or do they only deal in nerfs and aesthetic changes?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Pavel Sohaj
BAND of MAGNUS
#2 - 2014-09-04 10:55:34 UTC
Like those. Id personally prefer that roaming sleepers had some loot, love the POS cleanup idea too. Make the WD generator attract sleepers too :)
Enthropic
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#3 - 2014-09-04 11:05:10 UTC
I especially like the WH generator idea.
Would that not make everyone happy? People looking for pew could use this to increase their chance of jumping on a fleet running sites.

On the other hand, it would not clutter up every wh system like now making the carebears log out.
Jez Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-09-04 11:13:59 UTC
I appreciate the sentiment.

But i thought anchorable WH destab / spawn modules had been done to death already before the patch, and was largely not approved of by the wider community. Obviously changes since hyperion put things in a different light, but i dont like the idea of introducing modules to fix the issues introduced. WH relied on simple mechanics to give rise to complexity, not a clusterfuck of options to mitigate the negative effects of a patch.

I like roaming sleepers tho, not too sure about them shooting offline poses, but vov may help to clear the dead sticks that already litter the place up.
Pavel Sohaj
BAND of MAGNUS
#5 - 2014-09-04 11:51:50 UTC
Jez Amatin wrote:
I appreciate the sentiment.

But i thought anchorable WH destab / spawn modules had been done to death already before the patch, and was largely not approved of by the wider community. Obviously changes since hyperion put things in a different light, but i dont like the idea of introducing modules to fix the issues introduced. WH relied on simple mechanics to give rise to complexity, not a clusterfuck of options to mitigate the negative effects of a patch.

I like roaming sleepers tho, not too sure about them shooting offline poses, but vov may help to clear the dead sticks that already litter the place up.


Not like most changes have been approved widely by community. :D
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#6 - 2014-09-04 12:07:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Durzel
Rek Seven wrote:
one or two essentially nerf wormholes without adding any new and interesting gameplay.

A lot of people have been saying things like this, but it assumes that there wasn't a desire to shake up w-space in the first place by making these changes.

Maybe the feeling was that PVE was too safe because of the relative ease with which wormholes could be manipulated and controlled? Maybe CCP felt like a balance adjustment was necessary.

A lot of the criticism seems to come from a place where it is believed this was all unintended, or that there were unforseen negative consequences. I would only say that whilst I'm not strictly a "fan" of these changes, I'm sure CCP have access to considerably more metrics than we do, and metrics trump apocryphal and anecdotal evidence always. I note in particular that Fozzie said not long ago that the changes to mining sites being visible on scan immediately made no difference to how many people were mining, despite all the weary claims about how it would spell the death of mining in w-space at the time.

I guess what I'm saying is let the dust settle and see where things are then. I'm sure CCP would not let w-space "die", but I don't imagine they are too bothered about people who are too risk averse and expect to make mad amounts of ISK with disproportionate effort (rolling holes to run sites with single accounts wasn't hard) leaving to be replaced by more dedicated groups of players....
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#7 - 2014-09-04 12:18:03 UTC
Wormhole destabilizer: For what, when it was and still is so easy to close a hole by jumping through it? Nobody would use it.

Wormhole generator: People complain about all the new holes already, or some of us enjoy them. But I don't see anybody who thinks there is such a terrible lack of wormholes that we need to build an expensive module to generate even more.

Roaming sleepers: Okay, whatever. But I don't see what it really adds except some randomness in fights at wormholes (will the sleepers shoot you or the others?). It would just be harder to move slow, non-cloaky ships through chains, and I don't see why that is good. Haulers should die from my missiles, not from npc's ^^

IMO the change in mechanics added more 'newness' than these ideas would.

.
O'nira
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-09-04 12:38:53 UTC
anything to get rid of offline poses

+1ed
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-09-04 12:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Wormhole destabilizer: For what, when it was and still is so easy to close a hole by jumping through it? Nobody would use it.

Wormhole generator: People complain about all the new holes already, or some of us enjoy them. But I don't see anybody who thinks there is such a terrible lack of wormholes that we need to build an expensive module to generate even more.

Roaming sleepers: Okay, whatever. But I don't see what it really adds except some randomness in fights at wormholes (will the sleepers shoot you or the others?). It would just be harder to move slow, non-cloaky ships through chains, and I don't see why that is good. Haulers should die from my missiles, not from npc's ^^

IMO the change in mechanics added more 'newness' than these ideas would.


A wormhole destabilizer would allow small groups to close a wormhole without needing to commit a capital... I thought that would have been obvious which is why i didn't explain.

Perhaps there is less of a need for a generator now but i would have prefered a generator over increased k162s. Also i bet there are still people who want more connections. In case you missed it the first time, the generator also acts as a conflict driver (i.e. something for people to shoot or defend).

Wormholes are supposed to be dangerous and the sleepers are supposed to be tough. With these amount of empty systems and the fact that people have site running down to the science, this is no longer the case. If nothing else roaming sleepers would make wormholes a little more interesting and unpredictable again.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Amak Boma
Dragon Factory
xX SERENITY Xx
#10 - 2014-09-04 12:43:17 UTC
my idea is better.

if its structure device like pos
wormhole generators could be anchorable like POS'es but at sun and you need fuel it , liquid ozone as primary fuel for generating the wormholes, for keeping device online hhydrogen isotopes . this device allows you to control the static wormhole and you can do three things with static connection
1. force spawn static entrance near celestial that includes possible having wormhole close to your pos (risky)
2.open new static (only one and its random so it can be c1,c2,,c3,c4,c5,c6 also to kspace ns hs ls) changing static takes2hours
3.create decoy wormhole that leads to random wormhole that lure eventual enemies that wormhole will close upon jumping.minimum distance from any pos is 45km generated wormholes total mass 200 millions kg

if it has to be ship module first idea
wormhole generator could take high power slot and could be fit to all ships but fitted on black ops , covert ops will generate unscannable wormhole that leads anywhere (random) mass only allows one jump of max 10 battlecruisers or one battleship but frigates also can go throught. on other side wormhole can be scanned down like normal wormhole. and ship that produced wormhole can create up to 5 wormholes per hour but generated wormhole lifetime is only 10 minutes and evry 10minutes you have additional new static (the old additional static will collapse and new eopens close to you or specified location) fuel to operate the wormhole generator 200 nitrogen isotpes 200 liquid ozone , cycle takes 4minutes , ship cant move cant warp and 80% capacitor is drained during the wormhole generation. allows to change static entrance position, and creating temprorary additional statics as long as ship has fuel to operate or is not destroyed. minimum distance from any pos is 45km generated wormholes total mass 200 millions kg

wormhole generator as ship module idea 2.
takes high slot and requires any-race fuel blocks to operate it can be set to
a) shut down current static and open the static near you , if you close to pos so you will have wormhole next to pos
ship cant move for 10minutes during process and you can change static once per hour. it can be set to create temprorary secondary or thertary static by choosing specific option the new statics will be opened as long as you have eoungh fuel blocks to operae and as long as ship is not destroyed. can be fit to orca,rorqual and blockade runners minimum distance from any pos is 45km generated wormholes total mass 200 millions kg

wormhole generator as ship module idea 3.
takes medium slot and can be fitted to covert ops and black ops
requires strontium clatharates to operate and during cycle our ship cant move, cant warp , cant cloak
it generates scannable new temporary static to another w-space or to k-space (have to choose where to) and wormhole is spawning close to your ship (you can set to spawn on celestial if want) the new static lifetime is 30 minutes and evry 30minutes old static collapses and you have new additional this means you can have dual static or triple static (if you live in c1 or c2 or c4 wormhole) the additional static stays for current lifetime. if ship runs out of fuel it just wont create new additional static . if ship is destroyed generated wormhole stays for current lifetime minimum distance from nearest pos is 45km, generated wormholes total mass 200 millions kg

wormhole generator as ship module idea 4 (simple)
takes an high slot and require only oxygen to operate , you can create up to 6 new statics per one cycle or only one (you need chose, by efault 1 wormhole per cycle) one cycle cost 100 of oxygen consumption, generated wormhole lifetime is 2 hours , and cycle of module takes 6 minutes you can load new oxygen to module but you can use it again in next 2 hou 3 hours. can be fitted to cruiser,battlecruiser and battleships. , generated wormholes are scannable. if fitted to covert ops wormhole will be unscannable only on your side, on other side it can be scanned down. you can deploy wormholes close to pos if you like or anywhere else , minimum distance from pos is 45km generated wormholes total mass 200 millions kg


Wormhole mass disruption generator
anchorable POS structure , when its onlined it takes 10% of wormhole mtotall mas per cycle , cycle takes one minute, only one of this allowed per control tower

wormhole disruptor as ship module
takes high slot and u have to activate it near player-generated wormhole it closes it in 5 minutes but disable you from moving an warping and cloaking for 10 minutes multiple ships with these modules closes wormhole immedialey can be fitted on frigates , destroyers cruisers abttlcruisers and higher

wormhole analyzer as ship module
its like data/relic analyzer but allows you to get wormhole information from tke wormhole signature
1. scan down wormhole
2. warp to wormhole
3. target wormhole and activate module
4. you get static information remaining mass to use , remaining lifetime and ship class that can go throught it
5. you cant analyze k162 wormholes.

wormhole detector as pos module
simple pos module but you get the wormhole signature ID after cycle finishes so you dont need scan the all signatures to find wormhole cycle duration one hour.

wormhole collapser ship
specialised ship that is immune to polarisation but evry jump throught wormhole requires 95% capacitor and 5000 of nitrogen isotopes per one jumpship could be batleship sized
Jez Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-09-04 12:49:14 UTC
Durzel wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is let the dust settle and see where things are then. I'm sure CCP would not let w-space "die", but I don't imagine they are too bothered about people who are too risk averse and expect to make mad amounts of ISK with disproportionate effort (rolling holes to run sites with single accounts wasn't hard) leaving to be replaced by more dedicated groups of players....


I agree with most of your comments.

I also hope CCP are watching the metrics part, and i am very grateful to Corbexx for the work he has done to assist in this.

For arguments sake, small corps in w-space can be put in two groups - there are those with 10 alts, but also those with 5-10 individual chars. Admittedly it can be difficult to distinguish between farmer john and a genuine small wh corp, although i'd hope a small corp would have some pvp activity on kb whereas farmer john prob just pve losses (depending on how good / bad they are i guess).

The problem is the patch pushes those genuine small corps to grow in size to be able to manage their environment (as you also suggest). All the while low class holes have not improved the balance of risk vs rewards, which puts more pressure on static use / rolling... IMO Its a vicious circle, that could (and arguably should) have been anticipated.

I suppose "more dedicated pilots" can mean different things to different people, but i assume you mean more members.
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#12 - 2014-09-04 12:57:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Durzel
Jez Amatin wrote:
Durzel wrote:

I guess what I'm saying is let the dust settle and see where things are then. I'm sure CCP would not let w-space "die", but I don't imagine they are too bothered about people who are too risk averse and expect to make mad amounts of ISK with disproportionate effort (rolling holes to run sites with single accounts wasn't hard) leaving to be replaced by more dedicated groups of players....


I agree with most of your comments.

I also hope CCP are watching the metrics part, and i am very grateful to Corbexx for the work he has done to assist in this.

For arguments sake, small corps in w-space can be put in two groups - there are those with 10 alts, but also those with 5-10 individual chars. Admittedly it can be difficult to distinguish between farmer john and a genuine small wh corp, although i'd hope a small corp would have some pvp activity on kb whereas farmer john prob just pve losses (depending on how good / bad they are i guess).

The problem is the patch pushes those genuine small corps to grow in size to be able to manage their environment (as you also suggest). All the while low class holes have not improved the balance of risk vs rewards, which puts more pressure on static use / rolling... IMO Its a vicious circle, that could (and arguably should) have been anticipated.

I suppose "more dedicated pilots" can mean different things to different people, but i assume you mean more members.



I guess it wouldn't hurt for the mechanics to be more skewed in the higher class wormholes than the lower ones. For example I don't really see why C3 and below don't have wormhole jump spawn distances that are like the old system (i.e. <5km), because lower class wormholes can't sustain the larger entities anyway (no capital escalations, etc). This wouldn't be much different to how wormhole effects scale with class. The only downside of this I think would be confusing and inconsistent jump behaviour.

I do think that lower class wormhole residents are collateral damage in these mechanic changes, and are the worst affected. It is a shame, as you say, that the changes don't distinguish between small corps and one guy with lots of alts with the lower class wormholes. Personally, I would have no problem at all with the lower class wormholes being treated differently to the higher class ones - simply because they aren't comparable in ISK making ability, so the big boys wouldn't be interested in them anyway.

So yeah, I fully agree with the points you've made. Lower class wormholes have had a straight up nerf with no positive change, and the higher class ones - where people made the most ISK anyway - have now got something they ought to have really had to deal with from the beginning. I've got absolutely zero sympathy for people complaining that they can't now daytrip safely in C5+ solo or in a very small group, they don't "belong" there if they can't adequately defend themselves against "real" residents of that space.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-09-04 13:01:25 UTC
I'd appreciate it if you kept general hyperion discussions in one of the dozens of threads that already exist. Thanks.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#14 - 2014-09-04 13:03:06 UTC
Whoops, yeah, sorry.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#15 - 2014-09-04 13:05:19 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
A wormhole destabilizer would allow small groups to close a wormhole without needing to commit a capital...

Why would 'small groups' live in a system with capital-sized wormholes? Oh wait... because they can. Doesn't mean they should. Someone at CCP seems to agree.

.
Pavel Sohaj
BAND of MAGNUS
#16 - 2014-09-04 14:00:09 UTC
Itd be also fun if sleepers could siege your POS. Why not? You are in their space of sort and it could add some new dimensions aside from sitting under field.
Myth Oceanas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-09-04 16:24:17 UTC
Sleepers sound like a good idea to run with. I like this idea because the ships could destroy those inactive POS's that no one cares about.

The WH generator is basically a jump bridge platform. Just random.

The WH destabilize doesn't have enough risk. You don't have the risk of a ship getting trapped on the other side. And if it lights like a Cyno its your WH right? What risk is there unless maybe a fleet happens to be cloaked up?
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-09-04 17:05:51 UTC
Myth Oceanas wrote:

The WH destabilize doesn't have enough risk. You don't have the risk of a ship getting trapped on the other side. And if it lights like a Cyno its your WH right? What risk is there unless maybe a fleet happens to be cloaked up?


The beacon would appear on both sides of the wormhole so that people from either side can warp to it without scanning it. That is the risk for the ship attempting to close the wormhole.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Borsek
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2014-09-04 18:25:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Borsek
These used to be, and still are, terrible ideas. If the modules can be used on frigates or cruisers, fair enough, if not, it's useless, as I'd rather roll with MWD+MJD BS. Also the problem with hole rolling was rolling out or decreasing the amount or type of ships large corps can field - a.k.a combat rolling, or laying low then rolling after being afk for 30, while the big bad corp isn't paying attention anymore. The hole closing module just gives more 'as cheap as possible x ship' kills, which is hardly better than killing rolling caps, with 6x stab warp speed rig cloak setups.

I said the first thing after patch would be nano rolling caps, and I have been proven right. No more shiny 5b+ dread kills, all you get now is smelly t2/meta 4 fit rolling caps, that are used only because of their fat ass mass.

Getting more holes was, and should be called 'rolling the static'. No need for more clutter structures or modules.

Roaming sleepers attacking random crap is cool, but if they drop nothing, people will just avoid them entirely - use cloakies. A pvp fleet won't give a damn anyway, since they can probably alpha the poor things. It would add to the scenery, but not to the gameplay, just like adding more immobile props out of bounds on an FPS map.

Dead stick removal should be tackled by hacking - if a stick has been offline for more than a week, you can hack it, just like the containers, and a successful hack gives you ownership - you can then either unanchor the thing, or online it. It's a much better solution than sleepers shooting at it, since it promotes player action and exploration. Sleepers shooting dead sticks in uninhabited systems would be better handled by just giving POSes an expiry timer of a month - after offline for a month, it goes with the downtime. Simple and no extra server load.
Myth Oceanas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-09-04 21:11:49 UTC
Borsek wrote:
Dead stick removal should be tackled by hacking - if a stick has been offline for more than a week, you can hack it, just like the containers, and a successful hack gives you ownership - you can then either unanchor the thing, or online it. It's a much better solution than sleepers shooting at it, since it promotes player action and exploration. Sleepers shooting dead sticks in uninhabited systems would be better handled by just giving POSes an expiry timer of a month - after offline for a month, it goes with the downtime. Simple and no extra server load.


I just metioned that point as I once scanned down a hole with 11 inactive control towers. Can't remember the class but I recall the the outer planet had 11 moons and all had inactive POS on them, no actives in system. Sure there at some point was a reason for all those.
12Next page