Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Wormhole Effect Rebalance

First post
Author
#101 - 2014-08-07 04:01:02 UTC
BayneNothos wrote:
These look like fun.

Wolf Rayets are going to be amazing fun. How many of you C6 dudes out there will be running multi plate small gun T3/BS's now :P

As a pilot who lives in a Cat Variable, these look good. The big change for people will be shifting from Chain Logi to Solo Logi's. So Onieros over Guardians, Triage over Cap Chain.
The thing that'd really cement the Cat Variable in would be a capital module of the Capacitor Battery. Let us really go all out on that total cap pool :P

RLML Legion FTW
#102 - 2014-08-07 04:37:27 UTC
What i find interesting about the stats provided to us by Fozzie was that there was more player deaths in Pulsars then in a Magnetar, and by the looks of it by lots.

When we lived in a C5/5 pulsar almost noone would fight us in the home due to never having a dedicated shield fleet and understandably as we clearly had things set up with shield carrier support with the Chimera is god complex. But what i was surprised about was that we always got fight after fight in our C5/5 magnetar, the bitches loved that magnetic ****.

So i guess it confuses me are there a similar number of player deaths in pulsars and magnetars in C5/5's but it differs in lower classes due to people not being as concerned about the effect being that the effect % was lower?

Will you break down the first graph into WH C1-6 for us perhaps CCP Fozzie?

While we are at it i ******* love graphs and stats, can we have more on WH's please?
#103 - 2014-08-07 05:00:28 UTC
Galtianis wrote:

Role Bonus (Carrier):

  • Immune to all wormhole environmental effects


Role Bonus (Dreadnought):

  • Immune to all wormhole environmental effects


Please no. Wormhole space is interesting because you have to adapt the ships you fly and the way that you fly them to your particular environment. CCP do not need to rebalance two entire classes of ships because you don't want to change.
#104 - 2014-08-07 05:33:35 UTC
Quote:
Already dealing with a local tank nerf means carriers will not survive triage and are forced to spidertank. This is not by choice as you seem to presume, this is a necessity.


As a matter of record, a triage Archon with two meta local reppers, three remote reppers, and one remote cap transfer (plus an EANM and DC, and the rest cap regen) is fully capable of solo-tanking escalations, even in a C5 Cataclysmic Variable. Our standard setup is precisely as above, and we live in a C5 CV. With two local reppers and links from an command ship, a Triage Archon can tank a maximum of about 8663 DPS (8800ish with a second EANM instead of the DC, but we prefer the extra hull buffer just in case), and is nearly stable doing so even with a full double-wave (first carrier, first dread) of 12 Sleepless Guardians neuting it (it's 64% stable without the neuts, and still lasts 7 minutes on cap with all 12 neuts on it 100% of the time with both local reppers working 100% of the time as well).

Now, each Sleepless Guardian does 694 DPS, so a wave of 12 does 8328. Said carrier can tank them just fine.

Especially factor in that if you've got a pair of Lokis on field (as you should), they will almost instantly pull aggro off the carrier. In my experience, the carrier gets initial aggro and retains it roughly until the dreadnaught lands (assuming your dreadnaught and lokis are initiating warping to the site about the same time the carrier loads grid at the site), as which point one of your lokis (and it's almost always the same loki. I think characters have a randomized threat constant per character or something, because certain characters nearly *always* pull threat over others, regardless of actions) will pull threat on both waves, as well as the entire site.

Now, a well-tanked escalation loki can handle that aggro without breaking a sweat, and the triage archon can then keep them up just by continuously cycling their cap transfer on the loki (to counter the neuts) and pulsing a remote rep on them.

The biggest thing is that your triage pilot needs to learn what they can do with their cap, and need to train themselves to think of their armor and cap as exchangable commodities. Their armor doesn't always have to be at 100%. In fact, it's ideal if it's not, because then the triage pilot can pulse their local reppers to keep their cap between 20% and 40%, ideally between 25% and 35%, to maximize cap regen.

We've occasionally had our triage carrier get low (~20-30% armor), but all but one time that was purely because said triage pilot wasn't paying enough attention to their own armor and let it get too low (didn't lose it even then, though). The one time it wasn't simply inattention what when we accidentally spawned the second dreadnaught wave while we still has 11 of the 12 initial escalation battleships on field. That got hairy, but even with that much DPS and neut pressure on field, no one died, and our triage carrier tanked it just fine.

Quote:
The cap transfer penalty is a nicely creative way to nerf carrier blobs in Cataclysmic holes. For people concerned about their subcap logi wing, don't forget that Oneiros and Scimitars are a thing. The point of wormhole bonuses is to force you to adapt your doctrines to suit the environment you're in. Deal with it.


The problem is sleepers. Oneiros and Scimis are fantastic for PvP (especially Scimis), but they just can't handle sleeper sites purely due to the neuts. You have to have cap transfers or everything dies in those sites. Triage carriers are awesome, and will still work for capital escalations, but Guardians and Basilisk simply can't maintain their cap anymore unless they are running two transfers incoming, which negates most of the benefit, since they no longer have spare cap to give to other neut targets.

Quote:
Maybe this is also a little off topic here, but is there a way to actually get the wormhole effects displayed in game? I recall a recent change to the api data (kill data) due to that information not being available in game in any way. So, keeping everything equal can we get this information put into the game menus/windows somewhere?


Technically speaking that data is already available insofar as the system background shows it, but it takes an experienced eye. Just like how it's possible to determine which system class a K162 Dangerous or K162 Unknown goes to by the color of the wormhole, if you know what to look for and which colors mean what.
Rote Kapelle
#105 - 2014-08-07 06:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nelly Uanos
New frig size wormhole + new Wolf Rayet effect = Catalyst blob master race! Twisted

Must say thought... where is the second malus effect for Wolf-Rayet? Pulsar get signature bloom.... Wolf-Rayet need Ship Mass bloom! (Extra armor hp = More mass)

Just for the troll factor this could bring with people trying to collapse wormhole passing in a Wolf-Rayet! PLol

We like those change, neut bonus in Pulsar look great! Big smile (We live in a C6 Pulsar.... eh!)

Black hole, ohh damn this was time something changed for these! Look very interesting.

Red Giant, can't wait to bomb people! Big smile

Magnetar, nothing to say here...

CV, can't say much about these... not much experience with them.
#106 - 2014-08-07 08:22:58 UTC
It's nice to see that I was close to the money on what blackholes would be changed to.
#107 - 2014-08-07 08:37:39 UTC
Red Giant : Bomb damage increase is very nice thought, however you have to have someone there to bomb. Red Giants are mostly empty anyway and with another reason to not be in red giant's they are going to be even emptier. It needs something to draw players in so that they can be bombed.

Pulsar : Love the neut bonus. Neut Domi's for rolling a pulsar sounds like a good idea.

Black Hole : Whats the point in being fast if sleepers web you to 10m/sec as soon as you see them and with massive range? Removing webbifier bonuses means that they still wont be used for C5/C6 cap escalations since you cant slow the sleepers down enough to apply damage to them. There's still not enough of a benefit it move in. Maybe a medium missle damage bonus so that they become tengu heaven?
#108 - 2014-08-07 08:37:59 UTC
To expand on my original train of though, I do not understand why you feels that cataclysmic variables need this nerf when your numbers for this kind of space are negative. Admittedly not as much as for black holes, but still negative. To me, this means that cataclysmic variables are in need of some kind of buff to make the space more desirable. I don't have any game-fixing ideas when it comes to buffs, but I do have a suggested tweak to maybe address your issues with capital logistics in cataclysmic variables whitout making a logi chain in these systems impossible.

If the current bonuses to remote energy, shield and armour were to exclude capital modules the carrier fleets you want to address would be nerfed, without touching the smaller sizes (i.e cruiser logi and Dominix/Armageddon chains)

Alternatively, make the bonuses mentioned scale to 50% in C6, not 100%. Fleets would still be viable, but not to the supposedly overpowered level.

My main concern is that medium- to small-sized groups will be severely hurt, if not completely crippled, by your suggested changes since PvE will not be doable for some ppl in C5-6. When more logistic cruisers are needed in place of battleships, dps is lowered significantly without gaining a bonus in the new system, thus making the sites impossible to complete by current fleet sizes.
C C P Alliance
#109 - 2014-08-07 11:03:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far. Keep it coming.

After chatting with some players as well as discussion with the CSM we're going to expand the Red Giant bomb bonus to increase the effectiveness of Void and Lockbreaker bombs as well.

To clarify, it is intentional that the HP of bombs aren't increased in Red Giants. This means that the bonus allows you to get the same effect with fewer people in bombers, but doesn't allow imbalanced superwaves of bombs.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Gallente Federation
#110 - 2014-08-07 11:11:27 UTC
I have an idea, why don't you design a anchorable device similar to tcu or customs office.
This device will people in the wormhole space to be visable in local but instead of having 1, make the device have a range such as 9au.
Just an idea from very tired person lol.
Triumvirate.
#111 - 2014-08-07 11:16:21 UTC
Lord Damo Boirelle wrote:
I have an idea, why don't you design a anchorable device similar to tcu or customs office.
This device will people in the wormhole space to be visable in local but instead of having 1, make the device have a range such as 9au.
Just an idea from very tired person lol.


go back to nullsec
#112 - 2014-08-07 11:18:35 UTC
Saeka Tyr wrote:
Lord Damo Boirelle wrote:
I have an idea, why don't you design a anchorable device similar to tcu or customs office.
This device will people in the wormhole space to be visable in local but instead of having 1, make the device have a range such as 9au.
Just an idea from very tired person lol.


go back to nullsec


He should just biomass TBH.
#113 - 2014-08-07 11:39:25 UTC
I think these changes are generally good (the ones this thread is for discussing), though I would vote for a *slight* increase in bomb resistance, maybe so you could get 11 or 12 bombs worth, instead of 10

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.

Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-08-07 11:40:01 UTC
I do agree the changes seem functional. Scary, but functional. Its going to mean more for those systems that have special effect going on. Now for the major question... when will we see these in K-space, so they can share in the fun?
#115 - 2014-08-07 12:00:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far. Keep it coming.

After chatting with some players as well as discussion with the CSM we're going to expand the Red Giant bomb bonus to increase the effectiveness of Void and Lockbreaker bombs as well.

To clarify, it is intentional that the HP of bombs aren't increased in Red Giants. This means that the bonus allows you to get the same effect with fewer people in bombers, but doesn't allow imbalanced superwaves of bombs.


So what about the cataclysmic variables? When can we expect an answer on that subject?
#116 - 2014-08-07 12:27:02 UTC
Threll Lornax wrote:
To expand on my original train of though, I do not understand why you feels that cataclysmic variables need this nerf when your numbers for this kind of space are negative. Admittedly not as much as for black holes, but still negative. To me, this means that cataclysmic variables are in need of some kind of buff to make the space more desirable. I don't have any game-fixing ideas when it comes to buffs, but I do have a suggested tweak to maybe address your issues with capital logistics in cataclysmic variables whitout making a logi chain in these systems impossible.

If the current bonuses to remote energy, shield and armour were to exclude capital modules the carrier fleets you want to address would be nerfed, without touching the smaller sizes (i.e cruiser logi and Dominix/Armageddon chains)

Alternatively, make the bonuses mentioned scale to 50% in C6, not 100%. Fleets would still be viable, but not to the supposedly overpowered level.

My main concern is that medium- to small-sized groups will be severely hurt, if not completely crippled, by your suggested changes since PvE will not be doable for some ppl in C5-6. When more logistic cruisers are needed in place of battleships, dps is lowered significantly without gaining a bonus in the new system, thus making the sites impossible to complete by current fleet sizes.


Replace guardians with Onerios' (or scimitars) end logi subcap problem

Resident forum troll and fashion consultant

Enigma Project
#117 - 2014-08-07 12:28:00 UTC
Would be nice to have that graph about the relavtive player activity inlcude the no-effect w-space systems.

Cheers
Gal
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2014-08-07 12:29:31 UTC
Galtianis wrote:
Regarding cataclysmic variable:
After doing some math and fiddling with EFT fits, I've determined that spider-tanking of any kind is effectively dead. You can still use T2 Logistics & pilots with Logistics V and 2 cap transfers to compensate for the cap transfer penalty, or maybe you can still manage to stay cap stable with a single remote armor repair module on each battleship. However, this essentially means that you are no better off than if you were in k-space or another wormhole, you are just forced to use RR mechanics and lose the only benefit they had.
Looking at the activity chart, I can see why the cataclysmic variable needs to be modified so that those systems are used more. However, removing the only advantage this effect has over others and not providing any additional incentive will effectively make them the least suitable for any kind of activity as I see it.
The biggest problem I see with capitals in cataclysmic variable wormholes is that siege dreadnoughts are at a disadvantage when trying to clear combat sites because they need to sacrifice DPS to fit a beefier (and much more expensive) tank due to the local repair penalty. When the damage of dreadnoughts is reduced to make room for a tank to survive aggro shifts, it becomes apparent that you would make more ISK in another type of wormhole.

I have a simple solution (in place of proposed changes) that would balance both carriers and dreadnoughts. The downside (or bonus depending on how you see things) would be that Magnetar PvE would take a hit (because of dreadnoughts losing the 100% damage bonus).

Role Bonus (Carrier):

  • 200% bonus to Fighter control range
  • Can fit Warfare Link modules
  • Can fit Triage modules
  • Immune to all wormhole environmental effects


Role Bonus (Dreadnought):

  • Can fit Siege modules
  • Immune to all wormhole environmental effects


I don't think this would be much of a stretch considering that supercapitals are already immune to all forms of Electronic Warfare.



Then you'll have to come up with something besides spider tanking...

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far. Keep it coming.

After chatting with some players as well as discussion with the CSM we're going to expand the Red Giant bomb bonus to increase the effectiveness of Void and Lockbreaker bombs as well.

To clarify, it is intentional that the HP of bombs aren't increased in Red Giants. This means that the bonus allows you to get the same effect with fewer people in bombers, but doesn't allow imbalanced superwaves of bombs.


Did you just turn Red Giants into the Bombing Fields of Eve?

Have you ever considered expanding the wormhole effects to more wormholes? There are allot of empty ones out there that could use a interesting effect, if not just temporary (call it the wormhole haylee's comet, randomly giving wormholes it passes by wormhole effects for 48 hours).

I'd be interesting to notice your no effect wormhole suddenly have an effect for 48 hours, then drop.

Adds a bit of controlled randomness, but doesn't wreck people's wormhole choices by making it mandatory.

Yaay!!!!

Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#119 - 2014-08-07 13:12:58 UTC
Threll Lornax wrote:
To expand on my original train of though, I do not understand why you feels that cataclysmic variables need this nerf when your numbers for this kind of space are negative. Admittedly not as much as for black holes, but still negative. To me, this means that cataclysmic variables are in need of some kind of buff to make the space more desirable. I don't have any game-fixing ideas when it comes to buffs, but I do have a suggested tweak to maybe address your issues with capital logistics in cataclysmic variables whitout making a logi chain in these systems impossible.

If the current bonuses to remote energy, shield and armour were to exclude capital modules the carrier fleets you want to address would be nerfed, without touching the smaller sizes (i.e cruiser logi and Dominix/Armageddon chains)

Alternatively, make the bonuses mentioned scale to 50% in C6, not 100%. Fleets would still be viable, but not to the supposedly overpowered level.

My main concern is that medium- to small-sized groups will be severely hurt, if not completely crippled, by your suggested changes since PvE will not be doable for some ppl in C5-6. When more logistic cruisers are needed in place of battleships, dps is lowered significantly without gaining a bonus in the new system, thus making the sites impossible to complete by current fleet sizes.


Look, if you're running carriers, it means you're going triage weaving over the previous carrier cap chains, thats all. If you're running Logi's you're using the Scimi and Oneiros over the other two as they stand better on their own.

Or you could, gasp, just fit come cap mods on your Guardians. Remember your cap recharge is also based on your total cap pool, you do get a bonus to that already from teh cat variable.
Einstein-Rosen Brigade
#120 - 2014-08-07 13:17:27 UTC
+1
Black holes don't seem utterly miserable now, huzah!

(I dislike most of the rest of the stuff tho)
Forum Jump