These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at


  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Mass-Based Spawn Distance After WH Jumps

First post First post First post
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#41 - 2014-08-06 15:24:56 UTC
WoAz wrote:
If you want to balance PvP considerations on holes with caps against heightened risk, perhaps make it so caps spawn within range but have an immediate (and possibly shorter) polarization timer. Creates risk for all entities but saves the tedious time of pinging the cap to bring it back into the hole.

So you jump a cap in, its still in the current range, but then cant jump back for 2mins / 2 1/2 mins? Me likey

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

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

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser

The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#42 - 2014-08-06 15:25:41 UTC
The biggest issue with this change I see is you are adding work/time to rolling a wormhole, which is something many of us do 10s, maybe even 100 times a day.

I completely understand that your intention is to make rolling the WH "riskier" and " require more support" But in reality 99% of the times we are rolling our wormholes is because its dead/empty/undesirable. Were getting rid of it because it doesn't have content, so we can go find content. All this change does is make it take longer and require more effort to go FIND content.

I hate my targets rolling the WH on them as much as the next guy, but this is honestly going to hamper hunters more than them. Hunters are the ones constantly churning through whs looking for targets. With the K162 appearance change theyll be rolling even fewer WHs than ever.

Event Organizer of EVE North East

Going Critical
#43 - 2014-08-06 15:27:53 UTC
DirtyJob wrote:

I also agree that making function proportional to momentum would add another tactical flavour to wh fights.

Not momentum.

Momentum would mean that slow-moving mass-heavy things (like dreads) would land as far away as fast-moving mass-light things (like ishtars).

Function should be inversely proportional to mass, but proportional to speed (probably to max speed, as to avoid the issues of trying to go through wormholes at maximum speed).

Bonus points if wormhole exit was also directional, as this could also help to solve problems regarding dread grouping.
Tineoidea Asanari
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-08-06 15:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tineoidea Asanari
I dont think that the basics of the idea are bad, as it will bring more diversity into fleet setups and those 1600mm HAC/T3/Guardians will be still viable but the same goes then for fast propelling shield fleets. I like that part, really.

But how you do that is a real No-Go CCP. You are basically destroying possibilities to create content and make alot of setups (like Triage Carrier) useless on a tactical scale. This might be not intended, but as many other people told you - you are doing it.

Here are 2 ideas i read somewhere which might should be considered valid options:

1.) Make people spawn the closer the more mass they have. Kitey shield fleets will be able to get away from the enemy, Caps are in refit + logistic range - everything perfect.

2.) Make ships spawn in a cone towards the sun. That way we could predict at least a bit where we spawn and decide if it's worth the risk, so we are in combat range and not scattered around a big sphere and easily shot down.

And Edit says:
Maybe increase the refit range of carriers. This would help here alot.
Nolak Ataru
Worm Holers Anonymous
Hole Control
#45 - 2014-08-06 15:30:02 UTC
I noticed in the Dev Blog that you said you had talked to CSM members. Unless I miss-counted, only one CSM member was a dedicated wormhole guy, with maybe two others who knew what they were talking about. The rest were nullsec blocs with little interest in wormholes, and they probably would give you all the exact same threadnaut of cons at the idea of implementing the same mass change to nullsec cynos and jump bridges.
Going Critical
#46 - 2014-08-06 15:31:01 UTC
Von Keigai wrote:

Assuming I am correctly understanding the numbers in the dev blog, after Hyperion no ship that jumps a wormhole will ever land closer than 2000m from the wormhole. In fact, even the lightest ships always land at least 3500m from it. Thus, all covert ships will be essentially uncatchable by anything but a bubble. Indeed, all ships will be far enough from the wormhole that they no longer need to worry about the geometry when they warp, because their align cannot take them within decloak distance.... This change would make hunting in a cloaky ship less risky, but I don't agree with that either. Every time I come out 1600m from the wormhole is a tiny scare, and each time I survive it is a tiny victory.

As I said in the other thread (or it might have been on reddit), this "small" chance is easily where I lose the most T3s. It makes nullified cloaky T3s essentially invulnerable save for unlucky server ticks in wormspace.
Mindo Junde
Bunnie Slayers
#47 - 2014-08-06 15:31:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mindo Junde
Gotta love this, 'we're listening to your concerns' = Yes we're doing it whether you like it or not.

If you want fights with Capitals in WH's, they are going to occur at the door. This change will strand Capitals too far apart to fight, and follow any plan effectively, so all you'll achieve is the removal of Capitals from Worm Hole fights, in other words you'll make fights more unlikely, not more likely. So either stop being so idiotic and changing stuff for the sake of it (A Change that the (almost) entire Wormhole community DOES NOT BLOODY WANT!.)

Wormholes, according to your own propaganda, actually work. So stop arsing about with stuff that actually works FFS, and exactly what does this address anyway? So far I've not heard any reasons/issues that this addresses, aside from the aforementioned - ooo lets change stuff...

Wormholes are already particularly dangerous, far far more so than Null-sec. The wormhole community does not want a 'fix' that is going to turn Wormholes into another stoopid stagfest.

Lapin Poilu wrote:
CCP will need to make some new modules for the ships we use to roll holes.

There is already more then enough risk in rolling a hole with an Orca let alone adding this to the equation.

This would not surprise me they've already set a precedent for 'modules to cover bad CCP idea's. Never ceases to amaze me how disconnected from the player base CCP devs appear to be now.
Glasgow Dunlop
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#48 - 2014-08-06 15:32:57 UTC
If your going to do this with wormholes, why not jumpbridges and cynos as well?

@glasgowdunlop #tweetfleet

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

Glasgow EVE Meets Organiser

Dark Armata
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2014-08-06 15:35:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dark Armata
The dev blog has made me feel better about the general direction you are going for.

However this change completely negates a lot of the options small-med corps/alliances have for "modifying" the fight in their favor.

While this change may see a lot more unintended player interaction, i.e. ganks.

It will see a lot less intended player interaction. As basically any action that requires jumping through a wormhole now carries so much more risk. In fact in a lot of cases it will basically be suicide. Even just jumping your fleet in to test the waters will leave a lot of your fleet stranded (especially under webs and scrams).

As soon as something becomes completely suicidal, a lot of people will just log off.

It will no longer be a case of risk v reward - could lose ships, will shut hole.
Instead it will be a case of loss v nothing - will lose ships, hole will still not be shut (as they would have died on the other side after spawning so far away).

Also rage rolling is the most common way of finding content, anything that makes it take longer is not desireable.

Please, at least put this particular change on the back burner for a while.

Implement all the others, watch the effects they have and then decide whether this is necessary.

W-Space IS Best Space

Ann Markson
#50 - 2014-08-06 15:37:37 UTC
The main cause of "Danger" In wormholes is that they are well connected and those connections are unpredictable, while on the same time the reason they fit small groups so well is that they are extremely flexible, which is a very important niche in the time of Powerblocks and super escalations.

With the new way k162 appear people are a lot less safer when farming, as every dedicated fleet can then roll, form and jump into the hole in anticipation of some NPC farming to hop onto.

However noone will be interested in rolling anymore, as it keeps a high risk and makes you very vulnerable, especially when having a wh->low or wh->null connection.

With the propsed changes most wh groups will end up with waiting for their static to roll itself and either have luck and do something out of it, or log off for the next day, which should absolutely not be ccps intention.

Also when there is a big group->small group connection the small group has no chance of doing anything until that changes as the big group that has activity in all timezones will camp the wh for anyone trying to close it early, at worst getting bored and shooting towers to tickle some pvp they wont get. At the end of this process another group will have left W-Space, and W-Space will more or less fastly face the same issues of power blocks and projection like null faces as of know, which are a major concern to most of the playerbase.

If the target is to create a better pvp meta around kiting/long range, then having it reverse way, so basically smaller ships can spawn further away, while bigger will be closer to the wormhole they just went through. This will give leightwieght kiters a chance to get away, while keeping the overall wh pvp healthy.

This is written from a small WH groups perspective, not from the 500 character corps point of view, so i hope i defended the small groups point of view here.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#51 - 2014-08-06 15:37:46 UTC
As a 4 year WH resident, I love these changes.

I see little to no risk involved in "Rage Rolling" as the responding party would have ~1-2minutes to respond to the presence of capitals cycling their WH. Which, unless they have a fleet actively PvPing, the chances of actually catching the caps is still quite low.

I see no issue with making "Rage rolling" take 3 minutes longer per hole, as warping the caps to the initial WH probably took longer than having them re-approach once they're in.

The Sky isn't falling, and its nice to see some of the absurd "Safety" measures we've come to rely on get messed with.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2014-08-06 15:38:44 UTC
Glasgow Dunlop wrote:
If your going to do this with wormholes, why not jumpbridges and cynos as well?

I'd like to see this as well ^_^
LT Alter
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2014-08-06 15:38:55 UTC
It seems the Developer's main concern is the speed at which rage rolling can occur, if this is the case why not simply affect the wormhole timers rather than the locations of ships landing, the same goal could be accomplished without adversely causing all the problems this change would constitute.

For instance, create a timer (like polarization) that is a coefficient of the mass of the ship in such a way that capitals would take longer to jump back each jump (unlike polarization that allows for an instant return jump). This would prevent the capital from being stranded off the wormhole and thus an easy target to tackle, allow people to jump their caps in and remain within refitting range of each other, and allow them to remain in jump back range. The change would have no effect on groups ability to pvp with their capitals, as siege dreads and triage capitals wouldn't be able to jump back for 5 minutes or more anyway. It also still increases danger of rolling holes, as your capital can potentially be bumped off the wormhole.

Overall I feel a change with likeness to what I suggested would achieve the same goal the devs are hoping to achieve without causing the long list of problems the current planned change does.
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#54 - 2014-08-06 15:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Gallosek
From the article, the stated design drivers are:

This change is intended to ensure that all attempts to control the local wormhole environment are open to risk of player disruption. 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.

Meaning that CCP wants to stop the safety of collapsing yourself in. This mechanic does allow groups (especially small ones)to operate significantly more safely, and the proposed change does appear make it more dangerous for them. This sort of player is going to want to avoid combat regardless though, so they will probably choose to "make do with bubbles and scouts", which is only avoided as it is more annoying... however it is still fairly effective at the stated aim of "doing sites with minimal risk". In the very early days of wormholes this was a normal mode of operation, especially while pilots were mostly sub-capital and orcas were rare/expensive.

However I believe this underestimates the effect the "quick roll" mechanic has on another play style. Those who actively *seek* combat roll wormholes. This is an emergent mechanic which disrupts the above "mitigation" as well as any other defensive wormhole collapsing mechanic. Nothing about your own ability to collapse a wormhole can prepare you for an incoming connection with an interdictor (short of being bait with a fleet larger than any that may jump in).

I believe the proposed change to jump distance fails to meet the stated design goal whilst inadvertently making it SAFER for those who wish to avoid combat as it is less likely they will have a hostile gang appear from a previously uncharted wormhole connection.

The random "frigate" only wormholes are a far better counter to "complete safety" as it makes it easier to inject scouts into a system in which you can then stage a fleet in for later action.
Critical Mass Inc
#55 - 2014-08-06 15:39:38 UTC
My opinion is that where the respawn point is on the other side should be similar for all groups going through at the same time. I'll try to explain.

When a WH is jumped, a countdown timer for the next 10 seconds is fired. All ships going through that WH at that time will spawn on the other side in a fairly close proximity (under 5km) with the distance being determined by the sum of the masses of all ship that hit that window. This means that so long as everybody jumps in that 10 second window they will appear roughly together on the other side at a random point at a distance based on their total mass (or the mass of the largest ship). Note that the 10 second timer is based on a jump from either side. Travel time through the hole would be a minimum of 10 seconds. Note that the 10 second timer is invisible to players

This does a few things:
-It keeps a fleet fairly close together for operations
-It avoids ships popping out 40 km apart on the other side
-If a chasing ship (or fleet) jumps at the same time, they land close as well.
-Running away can be a challenge. Since the timer is picked off from either side, a fast ship could potentially trip of a fleet and break it up on a jump because they hit on a late part of a 10 second cycle

One last piece. A WH that closes due to mass should spit people back on on the side they tried to enter from for the last ten seconds of its life at the distances proposed on their mass.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet

#56 - 2014-08-06 15:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bleedingthrough
Rolling our 3bil C2-C5 static will be so much fun.
Up to 6.3 km away from jump range in BS. And every time we connect to a major PvP group we will lose ships or have to log for the night. Oops

Give C2s the income to feed 100 ppl and we will be able to defend our collapsing BS and give a fight.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#57 - 2014-08-06 15:40:16 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Fozzie, I have read through your other stickies and replied with my views of them and asked the odd question for clarity or added a comment for consideration.

However this change is unfortunately just beyond that point. Some things can be improved by tweaking the numbers or strength of the effect.

This however is mistaken, misplaced, and just a plain bad Idea, It is beyond rescue.

I know some have advised you that wormhole space needs "shaking up" but that does not mean actively destroying things in the hope something better might appear. That is bad advice of the worst kind, please disregard it.

All your other ideas have some merit, possibly you will take feedback on board and make them better.

This however as has been explained in depth, is just quite horrific, and if implemented will be a source of regret forever.

Do not even begin to think about polishing it to make it more appealing, we all know the saying, and you know some things just need to be flushed into the toilet and never spoken of again.

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

Orange Aideron
Worm Holers Anonymous
Hole Control
#58 - 2014-08-06 15:41:50 UTC
I only have one question: How far does our titian come out on the other side?
Caldari State
#59 - 2014-08-06 15:43:52 UTC
Orange Aideron wrote:
I only have one question: How far does our titian come out on the other side?

The wreck spawns 420km away.
Quincy Thibaud
Caldari State
#60 - 2014-08-06 15:44:35 UTC
Nox Arnoux wrote:
A key element of overcoming someone else's home system advantage is to be able to reliably refit the capitals we commit (i.e. dreads next to carriers). When capitals have the potential of spawning >30 km from each other, that advantage is nullified. To add insult to injury, the home defenders can still decide where their capitals land, while the attackers are at the mercy of the RNG Gods.

You push this change through, and no one will commit capitals into someone else's system ever again. The odds are already stacked heavily in favour of home defenders, why make it even more lopsided?

The defender in a wormhole should have all of the advantages as stated above. This makes attacking even more risky and gives the defender even more advantages. It will lead to more LOL-RNG kills of people trying to roll holes, but it's not going to generate large scale fights.

Rolling holes for the most part in C6/C5 space is about finding fights and possibly ganks. You are again making this harder to do. Would Rooks And Kings have bothered trying to roll for AHARM in Clarion Call 3 if it was going to take them 10 times as long?

Lets say there was no risk, just the wasted time in rolling holes in motoring back to the hole is a red flag. Right now null sec is stuck in stagnation because epic structure grinding is totally boring. Now you want to throw a similar mechanic in wormhole space - wasting more and more game time.

How about for a change CCP carefully think this change through? CCP, your thinking is flawed. If the idea is to induce more risk to a certain behavior you will get what Eve players will always do, make that risk/reward calculation. The result of that calculation will precipitate a decision that it is less worth the risk.

The other changes on cursory review seem fine, this one is flawed.