These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jack Marshal
The Malleus Maleficarum
Random Violence.
#561 - 2014-08-07 14:42:01 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
I for one like this change. While it may seem detrimental to those who are very well integrated into the current system, I believe that is the point. This change makes rolling holes harder with only high-mass ships. In theory, this will lead to a pipe in wh space lasting longer as people are less likely to roll it. Also it makes jumping into fight and then just jumping out harder as you may spawn out of the already large 5km jump range. I think this is a good change as it creates challenges for smart players to overcome and utilize, and diversify the styles of dealing with wh space.


Well Sir you definitely haven't , done anything with a small group of guys in a wormhole
or you must be used to flying in a large blob. Must be nice. With 5 or 6 guys online at a time
It really makes it hard to do anything. if you cant "secure' your static. Its extremely risky to do
when you have to do it under duress, racing, no holes, Hard knocks or any other **** fleet
to you Static or connector to close it before they get enough people to burn down your cap and battleship your
attempting to roll the hole, so you don't have to spin in your POS for the day. Even with locking people out
anytime of a Day there could be a **** fleet **** rolling waiting to jump in on you.
FYI when this happens we don't have a cyno to call in supers and welp an attacker, we also
don't have a week of TIMERS to Amass Titains Suppers and 900 people. we have 1 timer and
that is a POS timer. Challenges? seriously? Try adding content not retardation, how bout fixing up
more POS management, or maybe the bookmarks

Note: Mind Craft and Dayz server will be open to WH people when this change comes

Wh space is the last place for a hand full of people to call "home" were they can defend it.
Its ********, if you want more "PVP" in wormhole Add some Tech moons in black holes or something
Give people a bigger reason to come in. The Fights are Great Win loose or draw,
Tell me were else in eve you can use bhaalgorns, Triage carriers, and dreadnoughts on a daily basis
with less then 20 people in a fight. Win loose or draw, those are Awesome fights.
Even getting murdered by these large alliances, when running sites we still have a fight
and go down biting clawing and scratching. Sir if you never knew this, you get to do a lot in a WH
fight, Refitting, bumping, changing ships etc. It maybe a lot for you to understand but PVP can
consist of more then F1 and ctrl Space.


Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#562 - 2014-08-07 14:43:02 UTC
Pavel Sohaj wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Pavel Sohaj wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:

Too predicatable?? Who says it shouldn't be predictable??

I'm not the best role player, but here goes: We WARP spaceships through space, we have instant CLONES, we have JUMP CLONES, we can intentionally warp space/time and CYNO and BRIDGE fleets at will.

But you have decided we shouldn't be able to predict/dertermine a wh's useable mass? I'm not sure any logic can honestly be applied to this stuff. What is your basis for "too predictable"?


ive shortened the quote.
Well, why we dont have wormhole keeping generator? So we can constatly flourish in single place. Much like in the trailer the WH collapsed, these do to. What I am saying is that some variation is nice. At least you wont do it half asleep :D


Oh, YOU feel some variation is nice.

So I think this wonderful mechanic that has brought years of exciting gameplay is nice as is. Even though I'm clearly superior to you in all respects, I'll lower the value of my opinion to the paltry value of yours, thus our opinions cancel one another out. Now that we've cancelled each other out it appears that 60 pages (both threadnaughts) of fact based discussion indicate this change is bad.

Don't get me wrong.... I truly respect your feelings. This thread is more about facts.


Uh oh. Misunderstood but okay. WHen you lower again, I am agaisnt this change. What I am saying is that mass in WHs should be more varied, thats all. I live in WH for years.

But lawl on your response, made me smile ;)



Glad you smiled. I can't play eve while at work, but I can play forums. And even the forums should be fun for everyone.... well except for that one dude - he's a tool. He should never have fun doing anything. I hoped you smiled at the haddok to the back of Fozzies head as much as I hope the guy in the next cube actually does it. (non lethal haddok whacking of course).
Rivka
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
#563 - 2014-08-07 14:43:13 UTC
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
Rivka wrote:
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:


If you want frigate warfare, there are plenty of options already in EvE, RvB, FW, etc.


This logic doesn't follow. What are Class 1 wormholes for, if not for frigates?

New Players, especially explorers, etc, or pilots who specialize in frigates, love wormhole space.

Frigate piloting is by far the funnest "class" of ship to pilot.


C1 are for frigates? Really. OMG. Have you ever been visiting a wormhole?

Edit: Honestly, I would accept that mass-jumprange idea immediately if they add this to every stargate and every Cyno and jumpbridge at the same time! That would be hell a lot of fun to see the reactions of those 0.0, lowsec and Hisec Players writing in this thread, but have no to nearly no idea what wormhole living means. Twisted


I agree that these changes should be applied to all stargates and jumpbridges.

Though I believe the function should be inverted so that smaller ships / faster ships, are thrown futher from the exit when they emerge(mass, astrometricsSkills, shipRole).


Yes, Wolf Rayet we have been very successful with frigates and new players ... especially with faction warfare players ... Not really certain why I seem to be the only one aware of this ???

It is a great way for new pilots to get involved in wormholes.
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#564 - 2014-08-07 14:43:18 UTC
Alabugin wrote:
If this change is removed, and all the others kept - it will be the best patch EVER and probably boister population of EVE and WH's a lot.

As it stands now, this change being implemented in 90% disagreed upon, offers nothing interesting, and only causes headaches for both smaller and larger WH corps.

The reasoning has been covered before - please CCP remove this change, everything else is amazing!!



Taking massive steps forward then jumping on a rocket backwards.

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

TDSIN Director : Join 'TDSIN pub' for more info, Join today!

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser

Rivka
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
#565 - 2014-08-07 14:44:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivka
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
Rivka wrote:
unimatrix0030 wrote:

Lol You have no wormhole experiance what so ever that is very clear now!


It appears to me, that higher class ships would get advantages in lower class wormholes, should "landing" distances in wormholes be modified as proposed.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding Fozzie's chart... but it appears that higher mass ships would get an advantage to landing distance ...

So, for "wolf pack frigate corps" it becomes very difficult to defend against an incursion of larger class ships--especially with the constant 16 hour random wormhole..


You know, that Capital Ships are not allowed to jump through wormholes leading into C1-C4, don't you?


You know that CCP is proposing a perma 16 hour RANDOM wormhole connection -- don't you? I have NO idea what the mechanic will be IF CCP allows connections like this.

EDIT:
I MISREAD CCP's Statement... the RANDOM wormholes are only large enough for frigates -- so that issue is moot! I misunderstood and I stand corrected!
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#566 - 2014-08-07 14:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: unimatrix0030
Being away further from the hole is not an advantage .
The new frigate wormhole only allows frigates and destroyers not bigger ships.
besides this is not the thread about the new type of hole.
You are quite the troll Rivka.

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Rivka
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
#567 - 2014-08-07 14:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivka
unimatrix0030 wrote:
Being away further from the hole is not an advantage .
The new frigate wormhole only allows frigates and destroyers not bigger ships.
besides this is not the thread about the new type of hole.
You are quite the troll Rivka.



I was mistaken that the randoms would allow larger ships ...

Which is why I was panicking. ... Has nothing to do with trolling.

The point still stands though ...

The function to determine distance from emerging from a wormhole should be something like:

emergeDistance(shipMass, shipRole, astrometricsSkills) ...


Landing further away gives advantages to avoid blobs. EDIT * For Frigate and Cruiser Pilots ... (Couldn't care less about battleships and capitals, they should have support anyway).

The inability to secure a whole lends to instability -- which should be a factor in more hostile and more profitable space.
Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#568 - 2014-08-07 14:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Fluffi Flaffi
Rivka wrote:
You know that CCP is proposing a perma 16 hour RANDOM wormhole connection -- don't you?


Of course, because I read the devblog.

Rivka wrote:
I have NO idea


That's my Impression as well.

@Wolf Rayet C1: Yes, but his is an excemption! Guess the share of C1 Wolf Rayets among all C1s ... Roll

Rivka wrote:
Landing further away gives advantages to avoid blobs.


What?
It's the complete opposite, really the complete opposite!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#569 - 2014-08-07 14:57:36 UTC
Glasgow Dunlop wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far. Special thanks to those who are providing lots of text about the reasoning behind your feelings, as those are the most useful posts.

We're continuing to pour over all the feedback and considering multiple options for adjustments to the plan based on what we're hearing. We probably won't have something new to announce for a couple days but we want you to know that we are listening and working hard behind the scenes in the meantime.


The best plan would be to leave the mechanics as it with regard to hole jumping, or put this mechanic on every jumpbrigde, cyno and titan bridge, afterall, these are man made wormholes to an extent. . . . .



Fozzie, Kidding aside. I'd like to hear your reasoning for only doing this to the wh mechanice or that you are going to RISK UP the others (cyno, bridges).

Please don't consider multiple options for adjustments. You either come out in jump range and can control the wh or not. This isn't horseshoes, this is moving a slow turning lumbering BUMPABLE capital ship. If it's not in jump range and I see it coming odds are pretty high that i can bump it further without any trouble. WH folks are good at bumping T3 cruisers off of wh, so bumping a moros is a no brainer. 6km off the wh is equivalent to 40km off the wh.

Really, it's a great mechanic that has provided several years of wh pvp epicness. Not broke..... don't fix. Not broke.... don't adjust.
Xela Kcaneoh
The Pirates Of Orion
#570 - 2014-08-07 14:58:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.
Why does your satisfaction even matter here, CCP? I do not buy Eve for forced player interaction. How many small corps must be evicted before CCP is "satisfied" with the interaction quotient?

I think you forget that while thousands are watching your massive Eve combat events, there are still thousands more enjoying the anti-social nature of a "space frontier". And we're paying the same membership fee as the more social players. If you feel like I'm "cockblocking" this solar system, then make more W-systems. Why must I be evicted because I choose to live in a small social group rather than a larger one?

Honestly, I think these new WH ideas are ultimately aimed to make independent (small corp) life impossible in W-space. CCP, prove me wrong.

Seagull craps on everything.

Steven Hackett
NOMADS.
#571 - 2014-08-07 15:05:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Steven Hackett
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback so far. Special thanks to those who are providing lots of text about the reasoning behind your feelings, as those are the most useful posts.

We're continuing to pour over all the feedback and considering multiple options for adjustments to the plan based on what we're hearing. We probably won't have something new to announce for a couple days but we want you to know that we are listening and working hard behind the scenes in the meantime.

I wrote a very nonconstructive post earlier explaining how constructive criticism is useless when giving feedback to you guys. Your post here proves exactly that. So thank you for showing that while you say you listen, you actually don't.. All you do is try to salvage what was a awful game design idea so you, by the end of the day, still have something to show for all the hours you have wasted..

Ever heard of the phrases:

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it."
and
"Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them." (think this one is Bruce Lee btw.)

Here is my constructive criticism:
I don't want your change, cause it doesn't add anything of value to the game. It only adds grief, frustration and it limits our amount of content .

Here is my idea to a solution:
Be a man, admit your mistake, stop trying to fix what isn't broken..


oh, and if you actual care about player engagements in w-space as you claim.. You should maybe try changes that enables real combat instead? Maybe do some research on your game and see what people do when they are afraid of rolling their connection. (Hint.. They log off).. While Logged off players might give some people great PVP challenges, some of us prefer our enemies to be online.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#572 - 2014-08-07 15:09:36 UTC
Rhavas has a nice write-up here http://interstellarprivateer.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/wormholes-not-gates/ as well.

His recommendation follows that of the majority of the wspace pilots posting here.

In short - most of the announced changes are good ones. The mass/jump variance is not one of those good things.

Kill it.

I'm right behind you

Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#573 - 2014-08-07 15:16:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.
[/quote]

The Problem I see here with your explaination / justification is the following.

How easy and safe it is to close wormholes is as well easy and safe to roll the wormholes. So where you force "risk-adverse" Players to accept more potential conflict (which could also drive them out of w-space Overall if the feel risk is now to big and not worth the effort) you are hindering as well those parties who use this "easy and safe" mechanic to drive conflicts. I have read with interest stories about ragerolling higher-class wormhole inhabitants to find again a specific wormhole to escalate a conflict. For my understanding this will be more difficult now and the question is, whether all parties can / are willing to make the efforts like before. I really have some serious doubts that you reach the Goal with this idea. Correct me please if I see that wrong.

And then there still remain the big issues you create for the smaller groups in w-space! Less inhabitants means less conflict for pvp-driven Players. Less pvp for them, even if it's just ganking a T1 Drake in a lower class wormhole could mean they move out looking for other opportunities. And what I very often understand from reading wormhole Forum section is that wormhole Players have tried and don't like K-Space life, doesn't matter if for political reason in 0.0, being bored in HiSec or lowsec.

my 2 Cents at the Moment.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#574 - 2014-08-07 15:20:30 UTC
look ccp, I get it, you guys spent tons of dev time on this and you have to justify it. I work in a large corp and I get it. but from your reply fozzy I can see its obvious that this change is in one way, shape or form going to go through regardless of what everyone is saying. im not going to discuss too much from where the pressure to implement this comes from (pride, cfc, director, etc.) but this is going to be the mini can explosion fiasco all over again. everyone told you it was a bad idea and eventually with a whole lot of egg on ccp's face you eventually removed it. dont let it get to that point. just accept that you made a mistake and focus on the fact that most of the other changes are actually being accepted by the wh community (I never thought id see the day honestly)

dont let this one change **** up a potentially acceptable wh patch. just let it go.

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

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#575 - 2014-08-07 15:24:22 UTC
As risk averse farmers leave, the value of sleeper salvage should rise. Hopefully players willing to take risk in order to make isk, will take the place of all the players that left.
Shade Skystrike
Doomheim
#576 - 2014-08-07 15:28:15 UTC
CCP Lebowski wrote:
Dark Armata wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
CCP Lebowski wrote:
In this change's current form active modules do not affect the distance that you will land from the wormhole. This is due to technical issues surrounding the mass calculations for your ship, which we are planning to fix, but may not make it into the Hyperion release.

Just wanted to make this known for the sake of full disclosure.
Posting this here as well for visibility.


So despite pages of replies across 2 threads.

This comment only proves you are not listening at all to the player feedback you requested as you are still spending more development time on this.

Honestly, as someone said earlier;

Pull this one part of Hyperion and wormholers will hail this the best update ever.

Some amazing stuff in the dev blog, please don't ruin it. Please.
As a QA analyst, I'm here to speak about the functionality of the feature, not its merits, and to make sure its as close to our designers vision as possible upon release.

EDIT: After rereading my post I feel I should clarify, considering the impact of a feature on gameplay and user experience is also part of being a QA analyst, its just not my place to comment on that on the forums!



Once again you're not listening!
How about this guys: Roll out the update WITHOUT the freaking mass ejection modification, and then see how we respond. Then ask us, yes ASK US the players who PAY YOUR PAYCHECK to evaluate what we would like to see next!
You guys have many games coming up on the horizon that threaten you. Start listening, or die like the rest.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#577 - 2014-08-07 15:30:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Obil Que
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.

The Problem I see here with your explaination / justification is the following.

How easy and safe it is to close wormholes is as well easy and safe to roll the wormholes. So where you force "risk-adverse" Players to accept more potential conflict (which could also drive them out of w-space Overall if the feel risk is now to big and not worth the effort) you are hindering as well those parties who use this "easy and safe" mechanic to drive conflicts. I have read with interest stories about ragerolling higher-class wormhole inhabitants to find again a specific wormhole to escalate a conflict. For my understanding this will be more difficult now and the question is, whether all parties can / are willing to make the efforts like before. I really have some serious doubts that you reach the Goal with this idea. Correct me please if I see that wrong.

And then there still remain the big issues you create for the smaller groups in w-space! Less inhabitants means less conflict for pvp-driven Players. Less pvp for them, even if it's just ganking a T1 Drake in a lower class wormhole could mean they move out looking for other opportunities. And what I very often understand from reading wormhole Forum section is that wormhole Players have tried and don't like K-Space life, doesn't matter if for political reason in 0.0, being bored in HiSec or lowsec.

my 2 Cents at the Moment.


What is is about wormhole residents then that dictates that they will not occupy space unless they absolutely have a guaranteed way to isolate their system whenever desired? (Ok, that's a bit of hyperbole but it is very close to what is being declared here repeatedly) The threat of conflict will simply force people to leave? Aren't we all under the constant threat of conflict?

I hate the HTFU ideal but seriously, at some point people need to HTFU here. What do low-sec and null-sec entities do when then have threat of conflict? They either ship up or dock up. It really isn't any different for wormhole space except the aspects of a lack of reinforcement avenues. In some ways I wish there was the capability to allow for only WH to WH cynos and only from unconnected chains. It would make for some interesting dynamics.
Rivka
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
#578 - 2014-08-07 15:39:05 UTC
Xela Kcaneoh wrote:
Why does your satisfaction even matter here, CCP? I do not buy Eve for forced player interaction. How many small corps must be evicted before CCP is "satisfied" with the interaction quotient?


...

Why must I be evicted because I choose to live in a small social group rather than a larger one?

Honestly, I think these new WH ideas are ultimately aimed to make independent (small corp) life impossible in W-space. CCP, prove me wrong.



Again, I cannot say this enough ... Please empower small fleets, and small corps. ^^

Larger class ships emerging from a wormhole is /really/ quite beside the point... Should they be able to burn back? etc, etc... with mechanics like "Bumping Capital Ships" at work ... this is kind of a MOOT argument.

BUT. With frigates and cruisers, this is a whole different scenario.

Small Wolf Pack Corps /need/ mobility, so emerging at a greater distance from a wormhole would be advantageous, and would also help them secure the space for BS and Capitals to come in.

Please DO give preference to SMALLER mass ships, invert the proposed equation. Or have separate equations depending on the ship ROLE.

emergeDistance(astrometricsSkills, shipMass, shipRole, standingForStarGateAndJumpGates) ...

I would think that the MAX range from the gate should be 100km, with FULL astrometrics / Recon skills, and that only recon ships should have the max advantage.

Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#579 - 2014-08-07 15:41:45 UTC
Obil Que wrote:


What is is about wormhole residents then that dictates that they will not occupy space unless they absolutely have a guaranteed way to isolate their system whenever desired? (Ok, that's a bit of hyperbole but it is very close to what is being declared here repeatedly) .



That is just Not possible and your Statement is incorrect.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#580 - 2014-08-07 15:44:26 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Fluffi Flaffi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are not satisfied with how easy and safe it is to close wormholes that could potentially allow other players to interact with W-space operations, as the risk of player interaction should always be the main source of tension and danger in W-space.

The Problem I see here with your explaination / justification is the following.

How easy and safe it is to close wormholes is as well easy and safe to roll the wormholes. So where you force "risk-adverse" Players to accept more potential conflict (which could also drive them out of w-space Overall if the feel risk is now to big and not worth the effort) you are hindering as well those parties who use this "easy and safe" mechanic to drive conflicts. I have read with interest stories about ragerolling higher-class wormhole inhabitants to find again a specific wormhole to escalate a conflict. For my understanding this will be more difficult now and the question is, whether all parties can / are willing to make the efforts like before. I really have some serious doubts that you reach the Goal with this idea. Correct me please if I see that wrong.

And then there still remain the big issues you create for the smaller groups in w-space! Less inhabitants means less conflict for pvp-driven Players. Less pvp for them, even if it's just ganking a T1 Drake in a lower class wormhole could mean they move out looking for other opportunities. And what I very often understand from reading wormhole Forum section is that wormhole Players have tried and don't like K-Space life, doesn't matter if for political reason in 0.0, being bored in HiSec or lowsec.

my 2 Cents at the Moment.


What is is about wormhole residents then that dictates that they will not occupy space unless they absolutely have a guaranteed way to isolate their system whenever desired? (Ok, that's a bit of hyperbole but it is very close to what is being declared here repeatedly) The threat of conflict will simply force people to leave? Aren't we all under the constant threat of conflict?

I hate the HTFU ideal but seriously, at some point people need to HTFU here. What do low-sec and null-sec entities do when then have threat of conflict? They either ship up or dock up. It really isn't any different for wormhole space except the aspects of a lack of reinforcement avenues. In some ways I wish there was the capability to allow for only WH to WH cynos and only from unconnected chains. It would make for some interesting dynamics.


There is always the threat of conflict, people are complaining about adding more of it. In null or low sec you avoid the threat of conflict by moving a couple jumps over. or you cyno to a different area completely and run pve there.