These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Random WHs and the New Small Ship WHs

First post
Author
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#141 - 2014-08-07 08:29:17 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:




You. I like you.

Agreed this is an interesting change. You put it much better than i could have done.


The real question is though. Who is gonna be the first corp to kill a cap escalation fleet with Enyos?
Chev Alsar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2014-08-07 09:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Chev Alsar
Lower class wormhole residents will be more harshly affected by this change.

Are there any plans to add reward to offset this additional risk?

I also feel that allowing wormholes with no mass limit sets a bad precedent.

Wormhole residents are occasionally accused of blobbing but nothing on the scale of null sec.... which this mechanic will allow.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#143 - 2014-08-07 09:44:16 UTC
don't let these WH's connect to nullsec first - not until you've tried them in highsec and losec, I have a feeling if nullsec finds one of these - the WH that's in there will be swamped by bored null roamers in cheap pods flying cheap frigs, so the WH'ers will POS/cloaky up since they don't want to risk their insanely overpriced pod in an easily popped frigate, then you'll likely get a fleet of bored null roamers shooting the pos for no reason.....

the problem here is that the null roamers are bored - shake their sov up - make them work to keep it - and this wouldn't be so bad.

Also coupled with the spawn range changes - this just makes refuelling your tower a lot more dangerous for smaller WH residents

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

You're Mum
Worm Holers Anonymous
Hole Control
#144 - 2014-08-07 10:05:01 UTC
XvXTeacherVxV wrote:

To address people's pod worries, it would be nice if we could use rorquals to switch pods in wormholes. Maybe when the rorqual gets updated?


IMO this is too safe a way to deal with this problem, a deployable module is less secure and therefor a content creator
I like the previous idea that if the POS is RF'd that it goes offline so your other pods are stuck :D

CCP’s song: 99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs, you take one down patch it around, 127 little bugs in the code

Valenthe de Celine
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2014-08-07 10:16:52 UTC
I keep seeing these grand ideas to make wormholes more PVP oriented than they already are. Where is the income to support this new level of danger and insecurity these unrollable wormholes will present? What incentive is there to stay in a wormhole that makes 0.5% of the value of a ship just for rolling holes from a single combat site (i.e. Orca)? This is much more unsettling for smaller corps, especially in C4 and under, as the income versus risk tables are all imbalanced with the C5 and C6 income.

My own experiences from living in a C3 for 15 months show that, unless you are using the planets for PI as your majority income source, it's extremely hard to make enough to even cover POS fuel bills in a C3, much less replace lost ships. Now you are making unclosable frigate holes that will prevent most industrials from being able to do even that? Most of lower class wormhole corps could not match an incoming blob if they wanted to, with many of these corps displaying 20 or less members, including alts, as their entire roster. The income from a C3 is only around 30-40m a site for combat sites, mining is suicide with all the ore anoms being readily warped to by attackers, and even then having 4-8 connections on a busy day means these holes are already unusable for large blocks of time unless you risk a 600m ISk ship (or multiple battleships at a third of that) to roll those unwanted connections. Losses of T3s from individuals trying to run sites ran one corp I know out of wormholes completely, and they tried to make a go of it in null, then most of the 30 man corp unsubbed and left the game out of frustration over not being able to find a niche to live in and make money. I know this contributed to the loss of several PLEX buyers because that was where the value for those lost T3s came from.. Subscription levels might be able to be fudged, with all the alts out there, but that there are routinely 20k less players online than there were a year ago is not lost on me. I fear these changes are going to cause numbers to dip even more as lower class wormholes become holes to dump ISK into without sufficient return. I recently did some activity in a C1, partially to help some corpmates, and partially to see what the income numbers were like. I make more from L4 missioning in highsec than a C1 combat site generates. With seriously low spawn rates of those combat anoms and painfully low value for having to fly in such a harsh environment, how is anyone supposed to try to live off that income? If I weren't sponsoring a POS off PI income, that fuel bill would wreck some folks for even affording ships to fly.

To summarize: Low mass, unrollable wormholes will accelerate losing players from EVE. What was the benefit here again?
Setsune Rin
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2014-08-07 11:02:50 UTC
bit skeptical as to the effect it will have on the WH meta, cruiser fleets are really all that you see

with frigate pvp being so easy to find in lowsec there is little incentive to use this slow method of trying to get fights

you might catch a site runner every now and then, but then again you can do that through a normal wormhole as well


i doubt it's going to hurt anyone, but it won't do much either



Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#147 - 2014-08-07 11:59:49 UTC
The idea of new, small wormholes is kind of neat.

But as someone who likes cloaky ships, it's limiting my options somewhat: I can either use an almost helpless cov-op, or an Astero. Sure, stealth bombers are also an option, but I personally prefer cruisers.

Is there a possibility to just lessen the constraints enough to allow recon-cruisers to slip through? I would really like to use my Pilgrim for stealthy shenannigans again. Pirate

Hell, I know it's a pipe dream, but a new class of cov-ops capable destroyers would be a cool idea and a compromise if recon-cruisers are too much.
Shaklu
Canadian Forces Corp
United 4 Nations
#148 - 2014-08-07 12:15:50 UTC
This seems to be a direct anti-PVE mechanic. -1

This, tied in with all of the other added WH connectivity means that PVE/Indy corps that are currently living in WH space are having the danger of their existence in WH space drastically increased, while PVP corps are just getting mechanics to make it easier to find victims.

Sure, PVP is fun. However being able to create a safe window is vital for WH security, and adding a 16-hour "scouts and bombers will come in and there's nothing you can do to stop them" WH connections is a terrible idea. It will shut down smaller corps for that 16 hour window.
Moloney
The Bilderberg Group
#149 - 2014-08-07 12:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Moloney
One of the UNIQUE points about WHs it that with some effort you can close the system off for a while.

Being able to close the system off is essential for any PvE activity in WHs.

You intend to add a random spawn WH that cannot be closed to the game.

No NO!! For the love of god NO!

What is wrong with bringing frigates and dessies through regular WH?? You need to add "Special eat the paste kid" version??
Shaklu
Canadian Forces Corp
United 4 Nations
#150 - 2014-08-07 12:30:13 UTC
Especially for those living in C4 - You are:
adding a static
adding indestructible WH fountains for fleets of frigates (yeah.. bombers..) with Hdic support
allowing PVP corps to gather a whole fleet on a hole before opening it
"More randomly spawning wormholes"...

This game has a SERIOUS problem with PVE. PVP is cool.. I guess.. but I am interested in PVE.. and one of the last places with any at all decent PVE is in WH space, and you are now making it MUCH worse. This will un-sub people.
Alicia Stormbringer
xLegion of the dammedx.
Moose Alliance
#151 - 2014-08-07 12:32:35 UTC
A second static to a C4 is all well and good if you like to pvp for the indy side and to make isk doing pve makes it a lot harder there's a reason isk making in C2's is shyte it's due to the 2nd static
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#152 - 2014-08-07 12:33:42 UTC
Shaklu wrote:
Especially for those living in C4 - You are:
adding a static
adding indestructible WH fountains for fleets of frigates (yeah.. bombers..) with Hdic support
allowing PVP corps to gather a whole fleet on a hole before opening it
"More randomly spawning wormholes"...

This game has a SERIOUS problem with PVE. PVP is cool.. I guess.. but I am interested in PVE.. and one of the last places with any at all decent PVE is in WH space, and you are now making it MUCH worse. This will un-sub people.


I'm sure it will, but hopefully it will keep people fighting also. You have to spend that money doing something, and that something is blowing up and losing spaceships.

You have to lose before you win.

Yaay!!!!

Alicia Stormbringer
xLegion of the dammedx.
Moose Alliance
#153 - 2014-08-07 12:39:17 UTC
Yet again this is all setup to promote pvp and lessen pve income it's a pretty pony idea
Jeff Kione
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#154 - 2014-08-07 12:41:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeff Kione
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Why not add these to nullsec->nullsec as well?

Depending on how these are received once we release them in wormholes, we'll consider adding them elsewhere. The CSM has also requested that we consider adding them as HS-WH connections in the future to encourage newer players to dip their toes into WH space with cheap ships.
I think both are good ideas but we'll start them off as WH exclusive and consider expansion from there.


What is currently stopping newer players from dipping their toes into w-space? If they're not doing it now with cheap frigs they won't be doing it with the addition of these holes. Come on, now.

I originally thought this change would be neat (wormhole frigate roams, etc) but apparently people don't like risking their expensive implants in weak ships, so I'm not sure how these are going to be used. Stealth bomber roams, maybe? A quick way to high-sec in a fast ship? This would be a nice opportunity to introduce stronger T3 frigates or destroyers that people would be willing to risk their implants in.
Meditril
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#155 - 2014-08-07 12:45:41 UTC
This has the potential to get another Frigate preferred scenario like Faction Warfare but now for Wormhole Space.
I definitely like this idea!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#156 - 2014-08-07 12:56:44 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
are multi-bubble heavy dictors allowed intentionally or what. is it like it makes no sense for them to be let through, but you don't want to bother messing with them because they're terrible anyway?


Its a mass issue. You can reduce their mass by a huge amount. I'm pretty sure they couldn't restrict their use without having to do some funky coding to identify that it was a heavy dictor and to say "no".

Simpler solution.

Whether they'll be used more.. dunno.


they could always increase the mass of HIC's when they rebalance them

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#157 - 2014-08-07 12:59:20 UTC
mm.. what happened too reducing the clone prices ???

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Chris Digitalus
The Pirates Of Orion
#158 - 2014-08-07 13:46:40 UTC
Rob Cobb wrote:
stop trying to fix things that are not broken ccp. I havent liked a single WH change i have read so far.

if you want to spice up w-space, give reasons for more people to move into them.

e.g. moon goo, ice belts, new types of site

if you want to make wormholes more dangerous,

sleepers spawn around wormholes randomly... new sleepers with hic bubbles, etc, use your imagination, add to the content, dont **** it sideways everyday and twice on sunday.

If you really want to go balls deep, sleepers having the chance to spawn at your moon and reinforcing your tower^^
^^^^^^^CCP READ THE ABOVE^^^^^^^^

This "mass regenerating" WH (indestructible for small corps) ruins the game for independent freedom-seekers almost as much as forcing us to pay SCC to make our own stuff with our own materials in our own assembly array powered by our own POS in our own HOME system. Some of us don't want to live in your socialist paradise, CCP.

W-space, for many of us, is about independently (no large corp) controlling our own space, and you are making this impossible for small groups. Leave the private people alone, we pay just like everybody else.

A year ago I wished I could attend Fanfest. Since Crius, I'm starting to want my money back for the skillpoints I've been investing in. This is my first post on Eve forum, and I've been playing since 2008.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#159 - 2014-08-07 13:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anize Oramara
apart from a very few large wh alliances/corps there wont be many wh groups that will be able to field large frigate fleets. then there's the issue with expensive pods.

nullsec on the other hand... lol and I though I was joking when I said this was a nullsec patch.

this patch seems to be adding wh people to the nullsec plankton food group aaaaahahahaha!

ps. by large I mean the 100man fleets I see daily and take part in.

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Alabugin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2014-08-07 14:24:26 UTC
Our Alliance will likely put up a smart bombing battleship doctrine. Please let null blob our hole with cheap frigates, we promise lots of wrecks =)