These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Michael Lafleur
#81 - 2014-08-06 16:02:56 UTC

I can see the point that CCP want to introduce here, they want to reduce, the number of person that close any WH that open on them to stay safe, while not warping they own static

i think this is the purpose of it


like all the post above, i say, this bring to much of a side effect, and it prevent the one chassing these hiding person from being found. Instead of that, make signature spawn quicker after a static WH is closed Twisted , its going to help chain collapse to find safely hidden person doing anomaly ...
chris elliot
Hateful Intent
Hostile Intervention
#82 - 2014-08-06 16:03:08 UTC
Quickly crashing a hole has always been an avenue of escape for smaller groups, and yes farmers. This change pretty much ensures that if a small group gets unlucky and hits a large group, that they are more likely to log off and go do something else than deal with this kind of bullsht mechanic.

You want people to interact, not go, "fk dat noise, time to watch Netflix".

Overall this is a perfect example of a bad idea. It only makes big groups stronger and more bored and raises the bar of entry even further for new people.
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#83 - 2014-08-06 16:04:12 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt

that doesn't seem like a good argument to me

The premise that the opposition starts with is that we would like to be able to generate content for ourselves.

It is what the entire wormhole community, such that it is, is based on. Adaption has nothing to do with this change, it will simply result in less structured PvP, and more one off random cap ganks. It's for that reason it is a poor change.
Goonswarm Federation
#84 - 2014-08-06 16:06:30 UTC
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

This is the core of it. W-space can be so quiet already, taking away or dramatically decreasing the ability to search for new content is a big mistake.

I also feel you'll see far fewer caps committed to fights, and you'll never want to fight in someone's home again.

All those other changes btw, so far, diggin' 'em.
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#85 - 2014-08-06 16:07:52 UTC
I really like the concept, as it will make closing off a WH more difficult in general while still allowing scouting the way it is.

For invaders, it will also disrupt their ranges,, so will give a benefit to defenders.

Overall, another very positive changes to WH!!

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#86 - 2014-08-06 16:08:04 UTC
I do want to make a post early on in this thread, that the idea of shaking up combat in wormholes is great. This just isn't the answer. I would like to see a different change be implemented than roll back this completely.
Luscius Uta
#87 - 2014-08-06 16:08:24 UTC
Just increase the distance at which you land a bit (so that you won't be within jump range 90% of the time like you are now), but don't make it dependant of ship's mass, velocity or any other parameter.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.

Lux Libertine
AEGIS Contest Corporation
#88 - 2014-08-06 16:08:29 UTC

seriously do you want to actually kill small corp operations in lower class WHs? As you calling rage rolling WHs actually helps us to create content for ourselves in terms of farmin the site in relatively peaceful mind when you dont have to watch 4different WHs if somebody dont want to kill you.
In lower class WHs there also ppl that actually living in a groups of few ppl trying to close wandering null WHs so they can farm in peace. As others say, some groups live by closing theirs wh-wh statics and farming the
wh on other site and then moving on to new one...
This would put most of them to letargy of waiting to be there some save exit systems to actually close them or sitting twice as long waiting and slowboating ships back to jump range of WH.
Reve Uhad
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2014-08-06 16:08:46 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Reve Uhad wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Reve Uhad wrote:
Speaking as a pilot in a small/med wormhole corp, the spawn distance change will be a detriment to our ability to generate content in an already highly risk-averse area of space. I do not support this change.

RNG ganks != goodfights.

a lot of the arguments against this change appear to stem from a premise that wormholers are entitled to control every aspect of the wormhole in which they live, rather than wormholes being a place where you deal with uncertainty and must constantly adapt

that doesn't seem like a good argument to me

The dynamic quality of wormholes creates an environment where you can go several days without having anything to shoot. This being a game where the primary goal is to shoot things, some amount of control needs to be there. We're not suggesting we get a menu where we can select which hole we roll into next, and we're not asking for any advantage we haven't already had. We're just asking that the current mechanic not be made worse.

that argument is obsoleted by "We will be significantly increasing the spawn rate of all the existing wormholes that originate in W-space"

I don't agree. I think it just means I'll be running into empty ships in POS's more often.
Super Secret Spaceship Syndicate
#90 - 2014-08-06 16:09:16 UTC
To reiterate my concerns from the other thread,

Due to the nature of w-space, the majority of your content should be coming from the static. An integral part of this content discovery is the ability to roll the static connection on demand and look for something else. The proposed change greatly reduces our ability to do so.

For weeks now my group has starved with a lack of home content. Few incomings and no anomalies mean we've been stuck with content in our static to keep members interested. We've rolled that thing probably 20 times daily now looking for entertainment, and we've been finding it. Sometimes we want to farm, sometimes we want to pew, sometimes we just need to make a run to Jita.

By both greatly increasing the risk associated with doing so and making the process much slower, you've come into direct conflict with your goals of providing players with content. On our off-hours I'm absolutely certain members won't be rolling our static because there's no backup if it hits the fan.

This change only promotes POSing up or merging into a larger group. The whole appeal of w-space has been that smaller groups can have a space of their own; I fear this change discourages these small groups from attempting to do so.

Consider a scenario such as the one that unfolded last week. We were rolled into by a 400-man corp. Being significantly smaller than that, we were stuck with three options: get our faces stomped in by a blobfest, log off and do something else, or combat roll the connection and find other content more suited to us. Can you guess which one we chose? Yeah, we rolled it and went back to stuff we could manage. Now imagine that scenario with your proposed changes. We send the rollers in, and they get absolutely murdered by the other group who catches them 20k off the hole. Which do you suppose provides more "content" in wormholes? Them eating a cap and making us log off, or us rolling them away and staying on to do stuff?

While this change is certainly a shake-up to wormhole space, I fear it will not have the intended effect. If you don't believe me, just watch your pretty activity graphs after this goes live and you'll see.
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
#91 - 2014-08-06 16:09:20 UTC
I foresee Null sec interceptor gangs roaming WH space.
The Federation of assorted candy
#92 - 2014-08-06 16:11:51 UTC
This is a Bad idea as show by many good posts above.

Two points i'd like to make about why it's a bad change, with relation to C5/6 whs:

1. When a smaller entity and larger entity clash the one way a smaller entity had of evening the odds was to bring a triage carrier, after this change i don't see this happening as bringing a cap is basically suicide for it. So smaller groups will have less chances to fight larger ones and less content for members leads to people leaving the corp, Thus it's either grow bigger or leave, which leads to bigger corps/alliances but less of them.

2. Taking the fight to a hostile home system gives the defender a HUGE advantage as the attacker has to worry about whether their caps will be in refit range, if they'll be able to extract, etc. This change adds more to the downsides of fighting in a home system for the attacker (This is based on the assumption that both parties are aware of each other).

I would rather see a change where attackers have less of a disadvantage in attacking a home system as i remember many fights where we/they wouldn't jump in because of the massive defending advantage.

If you are still set on the idea of implementing this then perhaps add in wh stabilizers (as a module or deployable) that reduce the range which ships spawn from after jumping through.

Also as a final point: Add this behavior to cynos/ covert cynos, because it's not like they need to jump to a specific point.

Now that i think about it, it's an instant rr sentry carrier n
Longinius Spear
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
#93 - 2014-08-06 16:12:59 UTC
If your intention is to slow down the rage rolling process. You have succeeded.

If your intention was to bring meaningful value to the current meta game, you have failed.

I'm indifferent honestly, the other changes to w-space are so awesome, I'll take this change in stride.

Read more of my ramblings on my blog

Saraki Ishikela
Caldari State
#94 - 2014-08-06 16:15:47 UTC
Shouldn't the real problem here be that groups of players have to "rage roll" wormholes in the first place to look for targets? It seems like CCP is trying to force player interaction on a process that most people use to try and facilitate player interaction. The problem to me seems to be that ragerolling is necessary, not that players have found the optimimum way of doing it.

Why not create a weapon system, bomb, mobile structure etc that will instead collapse the worm hole after a set amount of time? It can go a number of ways, players either shoot at the wormhole with a specialized weapon system to collapse it, so more players equals faster collapse, you set a mobile structure and after x amount of time the wormhole collapse around it, have it be a like a graviton mass accelerator and causes gravity spike that collapses the hole or what not.

The trick is whenever this process is initiated on one side, alert the other side it's going on. This will generate an opportunity for another group to try and disrupt and engage.

I just came up with this in 2 seconds, i'm sure it can be much more refined, but it seems silly to treat a symptom when the problem is with ragerolling itself.

One newbies quest to ExploreEVE: [u]Youtube[/u]: - **[u]**Blogspot:[/u] [u]Twitter:[/u]** - [u]Facebook[/u]:**

Xenn Marc
Comunidad Hispania
#95 - 2014-08-06 16:17:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenn Marc
Aside from the impacts in rage rolling due to landing distance from WHs, I like the rest of ideas, C4 with 2 statics, balancing effects and more random statics (including this new low mass idea) - However, together with my dislike towards the distance you appear from the WH I feel that all the proposals, if all go live there is too much change to take at once into a way of live that's not considered 'broken'.

WH needs more ppl, living, passing, hunting and getting lost - and bringing some chaos via more random WH or statics I think is the right way to go - but making it difficult to rage-roll or for small corps to jump a hole and find their fleet miles apart isn't the way - there has to be something we can control - or less people will adventure inside the hole.
Insane's Asylum
#96 - 2014-08-06 16:17:46 UTC
Worst change ever but its gonna shake up wh meta down to its core.
Not sure i like it from the perspective of small gang / solo player.

Its gonna turn a boring task into even more boring and make me spend more time with boring.
maybe can reduce some of the maximum ranges a little? Smile
Kennesaw Breach
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
#97 - 2014-08-06 16:17:57 UTC
The scientist in me doesn't like this idea. Wormholes are supposed to be connections between two points that ignore all the distance between. By that metric, I'd much rather have all ships spawn at 0 on the hole when jumping through. Decloak distance for EVERYONE, and more plausible science.
Brotherhood of the Ending Game
#98 - 2014-08-06 16:18:18 UTC
Again CCP you have chosen to harm solo pilots and small corps due to complaints from your larger bread winners.

CCP your hypocrisy knows no bounds. When you devs want to log on just to relax and play eve you have 2 perfectly isolated systems, and an entire galactic spiral to play in privately. Yes. Some pilots have figured out to create the next best thing in wh space. And for this reason these changes are being applied.

Some of us do not care about the politics of eve. We want to log into a game. Casually shoot some red crosses. Stare at some awesome looking graphics, all while shooting the breeze with our corp mates. This is because we are decent people. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of decent?

If any decent people are still reading this I encourage you to either play this game with no personal investment or, unsub as your life will be richer without this broken thing in it.
EVE University
Ivy League
#99 - 2014-08-06 16:21:12 UTC
C2 occupant here. We have a small group of E-UNI students & older members, occasionally we roll holes (usually using battleships & HICs, sometimes with an Orca) with 3 or fewer people, but normally a few more.

I don't think this will make a big change to the way we close holes. Sure, it'll take a bit longer to burn back to the hole on the far side, and therefore carry a bit more risk, but with propulsion modules and other pilots available for support that's really no problem. 2-9km to jump distance - within bubble range - seems pretty reasonable to me.

What this change will do is help us gank people travelling through wormholes - making w-space more dangerous. With some distance to make back it provides ample opportunity for webs and tackle to slow them and kill them.

If I read this correctly it also means you will never spawn within 2km of a wormhole - so you can always immediately cloak on the far side. In that respect it could make travelling a little safer.

I can't really speak about capitals spawn distance since our holes can't carry them.

Director of Communications EVE University

Follow me on Twitter: @eveKivena

Verran Skarne
4 Marketeers
#100 - 2014-08-06 16:22:00 UTC
We routinely roll our static looking for content (both PvE and PvP) to do. This change is definitely going to slow us down in that regard as well, and that's bad. As others have pointed out, there's a maximum to the number of people you can have in a w-space system simply because of available content.

I don't mind the PvP effects of this change - players will adapt. We'll use battleships instead of Orcas, we'll change tactics and doctrines to protect our ships better during the burn back to the hole, and so on. It's the knock-on effect of the change where it takes longer and becomes riskier to roll a hole or collapse a chain though that's the problem.