These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Distance that you're being ejected out of a wormhole depends on mass

First post First post First post
Author
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#621 - 2014-08-05 18:49:48 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Bat - crazy.

That is the most concise description of the suggested change yet.

Now, being as Fozzy is not bat - crazy, who suggested this change? And who suggested it would be good for wormhole space?

Dear god, please do not let it be Mr make it more pssssssh! ?

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

Theon Severasse
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#622 - 2014-08-05 18:54:37 UTC
Went to bed and this was at 5 pages, come back now and it's up to 30.



Might get a second CCP reply when it gets to 60 ;)







On point though, I don't know much about WHs, but this seems like a really stupid idea.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#623 - 2014-08-05 18:57:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good afternoon everyone.

We are indeed working on some changes to how ships spawn when they jump through wormholes. This is one part of a series of wormhole iterations we are working on and that we will be publishing a dev blog on soon. We will be looking for player feedback at that time.
The version of the code that is on SISI is absolutely not the final version, and is not running final numbers (the ranges we are working with internally are quite a bit closer than what is on this build of SISI).

We'll be posting a dev blog with the whole collection of proposed changes next week and we will be very interested in taking your feedback then. In the meantime I advise you all to not panic. Nobody is out to get you.

Hope you all have a great weekend.


Is removing ore sites from ship system scan and returning them to being probed sites in those changes?
Light Shock
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2014-08-05 19:01:42 UTC
Revenant thread goes 30+ pages. Gets 1 CCP reply.

Working as intended.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#625 - 2014-08-05 19:04:17 UTC
Light Shock wrote:
Revenant thread goes 30+ pages. Gets 1 CCP reply.

Working as intended.

Still a better page numbe vs Dev response ratio than the Rapid Missile thread....
Light Shock
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#626 - 2014-08-05 19:12:35 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Light Shock wrote:
Revenant thread goes 30+ pages. Gets 1 CCP reply.

Working as intended.

Still a better page numbe vs Dev response ratio than the Rapid Missile thread....



Only reason it got a reply in the first place was because WH community testers found it on SiSI before they had a chance to stealth launch it to live.

So really you can rule the first reply as a no-count.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#627 - 2014-08-05 19:22:13 UTC
Light Shock wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Light Shock wrote:
Revenant thread goes 30+ pages. Gets 1 CCP reply.

Working as intended.

Still a better page numbe vs Dev response ratio than the Rapid Missile thread....



Only reason it got a reply in the first place was because WH community testers found it on SiSI before they had a chance to stealth launch it to live.

So really you can rule the first reply as a no-count.

So what you're saying is that WH'ers caught Fozzie with his hand in the WH "cookie jar" and now he's doing damage control? That's crazy talk! Remember, Fozzie told us that know one is out to get us, and if we can't trust CCP to take player feedback into account when they launch new features then who can we trust?
I almost managed to type that with a straight face, almost. You would think that they would have learned by now that we get pretty irritable when they try to ninja **** in like this. If i tried to ninja a free account I would be banned but when they change the entire foundation of how a wormhole works we're just supposed to lube up and wait? Fozziebear, the majority of responses in this thread have expressed numerous and valid concerns that you have done nothing to alleviate. Yes, I understand that quieting player concerns is hard to do when you're busy ninja-coding a new feature but maybe, just maybe, your life would be a little easier if you had brought this up before hand. What do you think? Is that a reasonable request?

Also, you might have noticed that Cyberdyne has been pretty busy and I think that most of the outrage that was cleaned up was due to the fact that you deceived your player base intentionally. We had to stumble upon this ourselves or else we wouldn't have known anything about it until you had already coded it and had it ready to go live. Can you understand just how slimy that seems from our end? Maybe next time you can get a larger number of polite responses if you stop trying to slip stuff past your players and actually involve the people who are subscribing to your game.

Have a nice day,
Big smile
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#628 - 2014-08-05 19:24:14 UTC
Didnt they also want to delay sig detection on new wh to favor the other side?
Rei Moon
Perkone
Caldari State
#629 - 2014-08-05 19:37:41 UTC
definition of other side?
Also? More Dusettes?

Down the pole podcast "Annhhh"

Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#630 - 2014-08-05 19:40:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Altirius Saldiaro
Rei Moon wrote:
definition of other side?
Also? More Dusettes?


Look it up.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331782&find=unread
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#631 - 2014-08-05 20:10:24 UTC
Yeah, you guys really think there will be a devresponse? Fozzie already stated there will be a devblog and they are not going to risk getting **** on for one part of the "revamp".

BayneNothos wrote:
Just for the lulz, 8 jumps with a mega and a pod on Singularity. Dunno if this is old or new jump range numbers.

8 Plate Mega + MWD
High: 9.4km
Low: 8.0km
Average: 8.8km

Pod
High: 6.2km
Low: 3.6km
Average: 5.1km

Really just stopping you from auto jumping back at that distance. Anyone bored enough to go jump a carrier through some WH's a few times and do the same?


Under the premise the numbers for caps haven´t changed:
Mass: Pod 32000 kg ->5km
Mega around 100M -> 9km
Archon 1100M ->35 km

Have fun getting the numerics on this curve.
So even in a pod chances are good you´ll get popped before you can jump back. So if I´m hauling ships in I have to use a frig with propmod every time to be sure. This is ********. Last time I moved I already had to jump 30+ frigs-cruisers out one by one since orca would have murdered the hole too fast. Ofc I could just have clonejumped into an empty pod and be revieved in my POS. Oh no wait, that was nullsec....
With these changes you can now easily camp holes, without having to follow the target and get polarized youself.
Newsflash CCP, some of us in wormholespace like our holemechanics and don´t like gates. There are even really crazy people like me who like fighting on highsecs. Way harder to get killmails but if I´d like easy I´d only play on my FW toon. Trying to survive through polarization, crossjumping, forced polarization, etc all those nice tactics neglected by duming down. With these changes it all turns into gatecrashing and praying against 90% webs.
The only benefit anyone can see coming from this change is the higher risk at closing a c5/6. Farmers do that once a farmrun, maybe twice, so it really doesnt phase them much. PvP entities will hate their lives when rolling for content and if they roll into each other and see they can´t fight because bad numbers on one side they will just agree to let one side roll freely or log off.
I´ll stop thinking about this chance because I might go bald over it.
I really hope this devblog is almost ready, but I am not expecting anything but good intentions and horrible implementation.

Also I just reread the first line of Fozzie´s post about sigdelay:
Team Five O has been working on a few concepts for improvements to wormhole mechanics and we wanted to run one idea by you all to start some discussion in the community. 2014.03.23
So this "idea" about spawndistance probably has been on the table for 5+ months, esp if it really came from Chitsa/WH roundtable. I won´t even bother to look for the last devresponse there but I bet it is 4+ months old. I´ll just stop here otherwise ISD might happen.
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#632 - 2014-08-05 20:14:21 UTC
So I read it most though the thread. In the end I do agree with a change but I do not agree with current implementation. What I think is that CCP and CSM should get more varied feedback in the form of talking to wspace community. It would be great to get game designers and some major wspace movers on same comms and just to see what happens.

My personal opinion is that this change is neither good or bad. It is more of a shakeup of wspace.

TLDR: Wspace talk to the devs, try to channel your opinions through the sources you got avialible.

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me

Cirillith
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#633 - 2014-08-05 20:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Cirillith
Shilalasar wrote:

Also I just reread the first line of Fozzie´s post about sigdelay:
Team Five O has been working on a few concepts for improvements to wormhole mechanics and we wanted to run one idea by you all to start some discussion in the community. 2014.03.23
So this "idea" about spawndistance probably has been on the table for 5+ months, esp if it really came from Chitsa/WH roundtable. I won´t even bother to look for the last devresponse there but I bet it is 4+ months old. I´ll just stop here otherwise ISD might happen.


Why stop?
I wont - if you are right then we are already screwd, because none will probably even look at our opinion and it will be like with spread after opening data or relic can - it was implemented and removed year later...
I hope you are wrong.

On the other hand CCP Gargant - PR guy - didn't know about this (hes on vacations) or didn't want to share it with us during our meeting and drinking here in Warsaw...

I'm kinda more and more concern about silence form CCP out this all...
Von Keigai
#634 - 2014-08-05 20:22:04 UTC
BayneNothos wrote:
Just for the lulz, 8 jumps with a mega and a pod on Singularity. Dunno if this is old or new jump range numbers.

8 Plate Mega + MWD
High: 9.4km
Low: 8.0km
Average: 8.8km

Pod
High: 6.2km
Low: 3.6km
Average: 5.1km

This concerns me. It appears that every ship will always appear outside of the wormhole's decloak distance. This will make my form of hunting considerably less viable.

I hunt in wormholes. Usually I am alone, in a stealth bomber. I hunt for any kind of weak ship not in a POS, but among the most usual things I hunt (though not kill) are cloaky scouts. If a cloaky scout can always cloak safely against me, my chance of killing him is zero unless he makes a mistake or I happen to be right on top of him. Currently, there is always the incentive to go for it, on the small but real chance than he is within the wormhole's decloak distance. If he is, then I have the time to lock and can possibly kill. What usually happens is I uncloak, and I go for the lock but fail when he cloaks. This is good because I get a big thrill, and he gets a thrill. We both end up with racing hearts and feeling alive. People who feel alive keep playing.

Another thing I dislike about this, is its effect on me, the hunter. It makes me safer, since currently I too can be killed if I happen to appear too close to a wormhole and someone is there hunting me. Every jump I make into a new system is a bit dangerous. Don't take that way.

vonkeigai.blogspot.com

Meytal
Doomheim
#635 - 2014-08-05 20:32:37 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
So I read it most though the thread. In the end I do agree with a change but I do not agree with current implementation. What I think is that CCP and CSM should get more varied feedback in the form of talking to wspace community. It would be great to get game designers and some major wspace movers on same comms and just to see what happens.

My personal opinion is that this change is neither good or bad. It is more of a shakeup of wspace.

TLDR: Wspace talk to the devs, try to channel your opinions through the sources you got avialible.

What other things did you suggest to CCP while you were CSM?
AssassinationsdoneWrong
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#636 - 2014-08-05 21:04:48 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
Drivel


Well it took 32 pages to get to the bottom of the barrel commenters but obstinacy won out and our perseverance finally got us there.

The Nexus 7's

What we fall short of in numbers we more than make up for in stupidity

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#637 - 2014-08-05 21:08:11 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Chitsa Jason wrote:
So I read it most though the thread. In the end I do agree with a change but I do not agree with current implementation. What I think is that CCP and CSM should get more varied feedback in the form of talking to wspace community. It would be great to get game designers and some major wspace movers on same comms and just to see what happens.

My personal opinion is that this change is neither good or bad. It is more of a shakeup of wspace.

TLDR: Wspace talk to the devs, try to channel your opinions through the sources you got avialible.



No disrespect intended, but would that be a shake up comparable to throwing a hand grenade into a teenagers room hoping things might somehow land in a better order?

Because ... Well views are pretty clear.

Such a shame they wasted developer time on something so clearly a bad idea.

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

Aelyras Altol
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#638 - 2014-08-05 21:10:26 UTC
This has no doubt been said elsewhere in the thread, but why don't they reverse the implementation of this, make it so the larger your ships mass, less it drifts from the hole. With this rolling will go on unchanged, while allowing possible change away from the armor brawling fleets into other setups due to landing outside scram/web range of most ships.
Van Kuzco
Perkone
Caldari State
#639 - 2014-08-05 21:10:51 UTC
Why not just invert the changes? Small things exit a WH further away and big things exit closer.

This way kiting/shield cruiser fleets can actually be a viable meta. It would result in a much larger variety of fleet compositions rather than just brawling armor fleets.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#640 - 2014-08-05 21:12:00 UTC
Chitsa Jason wrote:
So I read it most though the thread. In the end I do agree with a change but I do not agree with current implementation. What I think is that CCP and CSM should get more varied feedback in the form of talking to wspace community. It would be great to get game designers and some major wspace movers on same comms and just to see what happens.

My personal opinion is that this change is neither good or bad. It is more of a shakeup of wspace.

TLDR: Wspace talk to the devs, try to channel your opinions through the sources you got avialible.


Any way you could get a tally of individual posters for and against this change as it is currently on sisi / proposed?
The only reason CCP never does this is because their changes recently have all been really bad.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.