Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Wormhole Effect Rebalance

First post
Author
WE FORM V0LTA
#181 - 2014-08-13 11:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zara Arran
Laura Agathon wrote:
Gotta say, I'm a bit disappointed there has not been a dev reply in nigh on a week.


I rather have devs developing and improving the game than responding to forums. I am rather content with the increase in dev appearances on the WH subforum lately. Don't get me wrong, getting updates and responses from CCP devs would be nice, but think we have to understand it's not their primary job.

On another note:
In the dev blog there was a graph on the relative activity per wormhole effect type. I was missing the 'no effect' whs. I am not sure whether I am reading the graph correctly: were no effect systems used as the control (normalized to 0%), or were no effect WHs forgotten?
Singularity Relic
#182 - 2014-08-13 12:01:09 UTC
Zara Arran wrote:
Laura Agathon wrote:
Gotta say, I'm a bit disappointed there has not been a dev reply in nigh on a week.


I rather have devs developing and improving the game than responding to forums. I am rather content with the increase in dev appearances on the WH subforum lately. Don't get me wrong, getting updates and responses from CCP devs would be nice, but think we have to understand it's not their primary job.


Oh certainly, but I'm concerned with their announcement of changes, and then them not acknowledging our replies. Even a "thanks for the feedback, we're working on it" would be appreciated.
#183 - 2014-08-13 12:02:09 UTC
Zara Arran wrote:
Laura Agathon wrote:
Gotta say, I'm a bit disappointed there has not been a dev reply in nigh on a week.


I rather have devs developing and improving the game than responding to forums. I am rather content with the increase in dev appearances on the WH subforum lately. Don't get me wrong, getting updates and responses from CCP devs would be nice, but think we have to understand it's not their primary job.


While I agree that it's best that they develop, simply posting a "we're working on this" doesn't take much time.
C C P Alliance
#184 - 2014-08-13 13:15:38 UTC
Hey guys. Thanks for the continued feedback.

We understand the concerns some of you have with the CV changes, and we'll be watching them carefully. However the combination of larger cap pools, increased cap regen (up to 33% more in C6) and the huge bonuses to remote repair combine to create an environment that we are pretty confident clever players can use to their advantage.

Even with the cap transmitter penalty logistics cruisers can generate much more cap than they use, and combined with the added internal cap regen there will be tons of defensive options.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Random Thinking
#185 - 2014-08-13 15:53:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Samsara Nolte
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the continued feedback.

We understand the concerns some of you have with the CV changes, and we'll be watching them carefully. However the combination of larger cap pools, increased cap regen (up to 33% more in C6) and the huge bonuses to remote repair combine to create an environment that we are pretty confident clever players can use to their advantage.

Even with the cap transmitter penalty logistics cruisers can generate much more cap than they use, and combined with the added internal cap regen there will be tons of defensive options.


Yeah it is possible to circument the nerf to cataclysmic by fitting 3 remote cap transmitters to basiliks and Guardian alike or in addition bring some Battery Osprey/Augoror (solely purpose to relay cap via large remote cap transmitter) with into the battle or sites or something similiar ...
but this doesn´t by no means change the fact that you have to either bring more ships to get the same out of them like before (Battery Osprey/Augoror) or to cripple the capapbilities of your Logistic ships in every other given enviroment – what is gonna put you at an great disadvantage whenever you are forced to pursue the enemy through a wormhole ...
But what you didn´t address was any form of Capital Ship use within a CV-hole.
It is safe to assume this will kill most uses of capitals within PVP -
in K-Space going into siege is already a do or die – but within a cataclysmic, where your self repair amount is greatly reduced and would force you to run an additional rep module just to get on same level or repair amount you would have had in k-space which is gonna require a flat 100% increase in used capacitor by this additional module the increased 33% cap recarge rate isn´t gonna change much since those setups aren´t even stable on a long shot. And here i didn´t even lay out the fact that an additional rep module requires a slot which now can´t be used to boost your resistances therefore hindering the effective rep further ...
But nonetheless let´s assume you would field a Dread and despite the odds this dread might survive a siege cycle under the heavy neut pressure normally used on dreads – he would need to end siege to be repped and recharged with cap – a now near impossible task since the remote cap amount is nerfed by up to 50% - not that it already took ages, compared to the fact how valuable time is in close engagments, to replenish this under normal circumstances, it now takes even longer.
And is practically impossible to do with sub capital modules ... what means it is required to field a carrier to do this job – a ship that is now practically the most useless ship, aside from escalating a site in high class , you could have inside a CV – hmm well aside from perhaps deal some damage it still has a great buffer and potentially decent dps ...
but let´s be honest that´s not the role those ships are meant to take -
they are ships meant to support the fleet, reapir them, recharge them and to keep them alive ...
a role this class might no longer be able to fulfill – the nerf to remote rep amount practically kills any pantheon setup, and the already existing nerf to local rep isn´t exactly helping to triage ... (most triage setups require 2 reps to be fitted to give you a chance to survice a cycle ... in CV you would need 4 to get the job done .... reducing the mods to fit resistance cap mods and the like ...)

It´s probably safe to assume that CV is gonna be an anti-capital environment and since my corp choose to live in one to make use of the home advantage carriers offered so far in defending your home, your assets – (then contrary to common believe Pantheon Carrier in CV can be brought down – but not with neut ... but there are other forms of e-war that can be utilized ...)
we will most likely vacate our CV home because this change is gonna inconvenience us far too much by offering little to no benefits ... we will need more Logistic ships, therefore pilots in PVE and PVP reducing our number of Pilots within other kinds of ships ... by offering us nothing in return ...
the fact this assesment is coming from us, a group of people who thought this is the best variable by a long shot, should be considered a substantial argument.
So you shouldn´t be suprised to find your future activity numbers of CV to be far behind the numbers of Black Holes of today.

And to emphassize my argument – if the CV variable would be considered to strong or even imbalanced by the players shouldn´t your graphs show an inverse activity behaviour, with CV being number 1 ? - i mean i´ve never played a game where people were this fast to figure out things that are gonna put them ahead. It´s a fact that CV is second last, so you would have needed to make it more attractive not the opposite of that.
Singularity Relic
#186 - 2014-08-13 16:09:21 UTC
Samsara Nolte wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the continued feedback.

We understand the concerns some of you have with the CV changes, and we'll be watching them carefully. However the combination of larger cap pools, increased cap regen (up to 33% more in C6) and the huge bonuses to remote repair combine to create an environment that we are pretty confident clever players can use to their advantage.

Even with the cap transmitter penalty logistics cruisers can generate much more cap than they use, and combined with the added internal cap regen there will be tons of defensive options.


Yeah it is possible to circument the nerf to cataclysmic by fitting 3 remote cap transmitters to basiliks and Guardian alike or in addition bring some Battery Osprey/Augoror (solely purpose to relay cap via large remote cap transmitter) with into the battle or sites or something similiar ...
but this doesn´t by no means change the fact that you have to either bring more ships to get the same out of them like before (Battery Osprey/Augoror) or to cripple the capapbilities of your Logistic ships in every other given enviroment – what is gonna put you at an great disadvantage whenever you are forced to pursue the enemy through a wormhole ...
But what you didn´t address was any form of Capital Ship use within a CV-hole.
It is safe to assume this will kill most uses of capitals within PVP -
in K-Space going into siege is already a do or die – but within a cataclysmic, where your self repair amount is greatly reduced and would force you to run an additional rep module just to get on same level or repair amount you would have had in k-space which is gonna require a flat 100% increase in used capacitor by this additional module the increased 33% cap recarge rate isn´t gonna change much since those setups aren´t even stable on a long shot. And here i didn´t even lay out the fact that an additional rep module requires a slot which now can´t be used to boost your resistances therefore hindering the effective rep further ...
But nonetheless let´s assume you would field a Dread and despite the odds this dread might survive a siege cycle under the heavy neut pressure normally used on dreads – he would need to end siege to be repped and recharged with cap – a now near impossible task since the remote cap amount is nerfed by up to 50% - not that it already took ages, compared to the fact how valuable time is in close engagments, to replenish this under normal circumstances, it now takes even longer.
And is practically impossible to do with sub capital modules ... what means it is required to field a carrier to do this job – a ship that is now practically the most useless ship, aside from escalating a site in high class , you could have inside a CV – hmm well aside from perhaps deal some damage it still has a great buffer and potentially decent dps ...
but let´s be honest that´s not the role those ships are meant to take -
they are ships meant to support the fleet, reapir them, recharge them and to keep them alive ...
a role this class might no longer be able to fulfill – the nerf to remote rep amount practically kills any pantheon setup, and the already existing nerf to local rep isn´t exactly helping to triage ... (most triage setups require 2 reps to be fitted to give you a chance to survice a cycle ... in CV you would need 4 to get the job done .... reducing the mods to fit resistance cap mods and the like ...)

It´s probably safe to assume that CV is gonna be an anti-capital environment and since my corp choose to live in one to make use of the home advantage carriers offered so far in defending your home, your assets – (then contrary to common believe Pantheon Carrier in CV can be brought down – but not with neut ... but there are other forms of e-war that can be utilized ...)
we will most likely vacate our CV home because this change is gonna inconvenience us far too much by offering little to no benefits ... we will need more Logistic ships, therefore pilots in PVE and PVP reducing our number of Pilots within other kinds of ships ... by offering us nothing in return ...
the fact this assesment is coming from us, a group of people who thought this is the best variable by a long shot, should be considered a substantial argument.
So you shouldn´t be suprised to find your future activity numbers of CV to be far behind the numbers of Black Holes of today.

And to emphassize my argument – if the CV variable would be considered to strong or even imbalanced by the players shouldn´t your graphs show an inverse activity behaviour, with CV being number 1 ? - i mean i´ve never played a game where people were this fast to figure out things that are gonna put them ahead. It´s a fact that CV is second last, so you would have needed to make it more attractive not the opposite of that.


BEAUTIFUL! EXACTLY!!!!
#187 - 2014-08-13 17:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Joraa Starkmanir
If you feel that new CV effects is a huge nerf to basilisk/guardian for support, compare it to no effects. Diffrence is that in no effect you usualy go with 4-5 reppers and 1-2 cap transfers, but in CV you need 2-3 reppers and 2-4 cap transfer for the SAME effect.
So you either fly with 2 reppers + 4 cap transfers or 3/3 with eh same number of logi ships as no effect, with higher local cap regen 3/3 could be enought to run everything as no effect but with 6 effective reppers per ship in C6
#188 - 2014-08-13 17:25:03 UTC
With this and frigate wormhole change, wolf rayets will become a rather dangerous space for escalations.
Unclosable wormholes that allow frigates in, into a wormhole that has reduced sig bonus and increased small gun damage.
It will definitely be interesting.
You Are Being Monitored
#189 - 2014-08-14 01:21:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the continued feedback.

We understand the concerns some of you have with the CV changes, and we'll be watching them carefully. However the combination of larger cap pools, increased cap regen (up to 33% more in C6) and the huge bonuses to remote repair combine to create an environment that we are pretty confident clever players can use to their advantage.

Even with the cap transmitter penalty logistics cruisers can generate much more cap than they use, and combined with the added internal cap regen there will be tons of defensive options.


Aaaaand that's the final nail in the coffin. We've just about completed vacating our C5 CV anyway, might as well finish the job.
Caldari State
#190 - 2014-08-14 02:13:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Klarion Sythis
For those of you worried about the cataclysmic thing, I have one word for you: shields.

This will push the meta to shields so you can fit CPRs in your lows.
The cap regen is no longer nerfed as hard as it was before meaning you have a higher self regen rate overall when combined with the higher cap pool. Take advantage of that with CPRs/Cap Rechargers and semiconductor rigs (in the case of capitals) and you don't need remote ETs at all. For subcap logi, use scimis, they're self sustaining. For capitals, I've already crapped out a fit that is capable of doing pantheon and stay capped up without ETs. If you want to use ETs to counter neut pressure, go for it, but you don't need them anymore.

For armor, you'd have to sacrifice tank for all of this cap regen, but I didn't even check to see what it would take to make cap stable fits. It's not the end of the world, but if you still feel the need to move out, go for it. We'll eventually publish a new guide on how to live there so you can come back.

Edit: Actually, further dicking around revealed armor is doable too.
#191 - 2014-08-14 06:41:41 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
For those of you worried about the cataclysmic thing, I have one word for you: shields.

This will push the meta to shields so you can fit CPRs in your lows.
The cap regen is no longer nerfed as hard as it was before meaning you have a higher self regen rate overall when combined with the higher cap pool. Take advantage of that with CPRs/Cap Rechargers and semiconductor rigs (in the case of capitals) and you don't need remote ETs at all. For subcap logi, use scimis, they're self sustaining. For capitals, I've already crapped out a fit that is capable of doing pantheon and stay capped up without ETs. If you want to use ETs to counter neut pressure, go for it, but you don't need them anymore.

For armor, you'd have to sacrifice tank for all of this cap regen, but I didn't even check to see what it would take to make cap stable fits. It's not the end of the world, but if you still feel the need to move out, go for it. We'll eventually publish a new guide on how to live there so you can come back.

Edit: Actually, further dicking around revealed armor is doable too.

Peak dps in a c5 site non escalated floats between 1586 (for the random trigger site so is actually a bit higher), 1920 at the least for the known triggers, and a max of 3214 for the hardest site. For cap esc 1st wave is 4164 and 2nd wave is 5552. It is NOT possible to fit that much solo reps to ships without blinging them out and even then it would require some pretty skill intensive/expensive hulls. Those fits would generally cost just as much as properly fitted carriers/dreads if not more. So your idea has merits in the lower class sites but in the upper it's simply not realistic/feasible to not use logi.

@CCP Fozzie
The fitting gurus have ALREADY weighed in and told you that it isn't possible to make the sub cap logi work unless you introduce a 3rd logi and even then you must run a (3 logi 3/3 setup) or (2 logi running 4/2 and 1 cap logi) to get the same benefits as current and that is WITH lv5 logi. A lv4 logi will have to devote both mids to cap recharge removing the ability to fit eccm or AB running a (3 logi 3/3 setup) or (2 logi running 4/2 and 1 cap logi). A lv3 logi wont be able to hack it no matter what you do (currently they can if the pilot staggers his modules with a setup designed just for them being lv3). Why are you not listening to what we are telling you? Maybe I should have gotten Loginus Spear on DTP to ask you that instead of the stations thing (which you completely ignored and started talking about starbases and deployables instead of stationsUgh). I'm beginning to think that that is the issue, you hear what you want from us not what we are actually saying.
#192 - 2014-08-14 11:02:33 UTC
OMEGA REDUX wrote:

Peak dps in a c5 site non escalated floats between 1586 (for the random trigger site so is actually a bit higher), 1920 at the least for the known triggers, and a max of 3214 for the hardest site. For cap esc 1st wave is 4164 and 2nd wave is 5552. It is NOT possible to fit that much solo reps to ships without blinging them out and even then it would require some pretty skill intensive/expensive hulls. Those fits would generally cost just as much as properly fitted carriers/dreads if not more. So your idea has merits in the lower class sites but in the upper it's simply not realistic/feasible to not use logi.

@CCP Fozzie
The fitting gurus have ALREADY weighed in and told you that it isn't possible to make the sub cap logi work unless you introduce a 3rd logi and even then you must run a (3 logi 3/3 setup) or (2 logi running 4/2 and 1 cap logi) to get the same benefits as current and that is WITH lv5 logi. A lv4 logi will have to devote both mids to cap recharge removing the ability to fit eccm or AB running a (3 logi 3/3 setup) or (2 logi running 4/2 and 1 cap logi). A lv3 logi wont be able to hack it no matter what you do (currently they can if the pilot staggers his modules with a setup designed just for them being lv3). Why are you not listening to what we are telling you? Maybe I should have gotten Loginus Spear on DTP to ask you that instead of the stations thing (which you completely ignored and started talking about starbases and deployables instead of stationsUgh). I'm beginning to think that that is the issue, you hear what you want from us not what we are actually saying.


It may need more logi that current, but not more than in a "no effect" hole, so it looks likda balanced there.

About that station question, my own thought when i heard the answer was that replacing POS with smaller/destructable station would be a possibility. The question itself be to the wrong guy tho, for all i know he have nothing to do with either station or POS work (dissclaimer, to lasy to hear the whole thing again to make sure i get it right)
Caldari State
#193 - 2014-08-14 12:27:48 UTC
OMEGA REDUX wrote:
I'm beginning to think that that is the issue, you hear what you want from us not what we are actually saying.

Don't forget Fozzie was/is quite the fitting guru himself. I keep seeing these "you're not listening to us!" posts crop up, but that's simply not the case. A lot of people are passionately arguing against the End of Times changes yet are operating with obviously false perceptions of how things work now.

Example: worries that sleeper neuting will be game breaking in the new pulsar when wormhole effects have never applied to sleepers. What's he supposed to do, correct every single misinformed post? In a lot of cases, I bet he's tested viable set ups and just because the general player base hasn't figured out what's viable doesn't make these bad changes.

Anyway, I'm confused about your concern on the CV holes now. If you're worried about local tank on caps, that debuff is the same as it has been. What do you need the subcap ETs for, PVE or PVP? Try creating a doctrine that uses the cap regeneration bonus to make each ship cap independent.

Also, never tried it, but I'm sure shield tanked caps can still run CV escalations.
Singularity Relic
#194 - 2014-08-14 14:04:47 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
OMEGA REDUX wrote:
I'm beginning to think that that is the issue, you hear what you want from us not what we are actually saying.

Don't forget Fozzie was/is quite the fitting guru himself. I keep seeing these "you're not listening to us!" posts crop up, but that's simply not the case. A lot of people are passionately arguing against the End of Times changes yet are operating with obviously false perceptions of how things work now.

Example: worries that sleeper neuting will be game breaking in the new pulsar when wormhole effects have never applied to sleepers. What's he supposed to do, correct every single misinformed post? In a lot of cases, I bet he's tested viable set ups and just because the general player base hasn't figured out what's viable doesn't make these bad changes.

Anyway, I'm confused about your concern on the CV holes now. If you're worried about local tank on caps, that debuff is the same as it has been. What do you need the subcap ETs for, PVE or PVP? Try creating a doctrine that uses the cap regeneration bonus to make each ship cap independent.

Also, never tried it, but I'm sure shield tanked caps can still run CV escalations.


While the ET changes are not ideal, I had a fit that worked withing 6 hours of the announcement, so I'm not overly worried there. Why I'm confused is that they showed us this nice graph which clearly demonstrated that Black Holes and CVs were underrepresented. They then went on to buff the Black Whole (with the exception of the web nerf) very nicely, missiles are better, drones are better, agility is better, and targeting range is better. The only downside would be the web effectiveness for dreadnaughts to shoot things. These changes are making Black Holes a place people are going to like living in.

Conversely, the CV changes do not make it more enticing. Carrier doctrines are generall either triage or pantheon/spider, but of which are now penalised. This change is not good for current residents, nor is it going to encourage people to move to one. We've already seen a few corps pack up and leave CVs because of this. Of course the CV is currently OP for pantheon/spider carriers, however I don't understand their angle, it seems they want to make CVs the new Black Hole of WH space.
Caldari State
#195 - 2014-08-14 14:58:21 UTC
I can agree that the CV changes aren't as exciting as the BH changes such that I expect people to move into them, but they haven't been straight up nerfed like some seem to think.

The huge cap pools and overall increased cap regeneration creates a lot of really interesting dynamics. Most things that rely on an ET based set up in literally any other part of space can be fit in ways that see themselves freed of that shackle.

I think it's very interesting, just like black holes, but I'm still not planning to live in either one of them unless I have some kind of epiphany of how it can be more fun than a Pulsar, WR, Magnetar, etc.

If you had reason to live in one before, I don't see why you think you have to move out now though.
#196 - 2014-08-14 16:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Klarion Sythis wrote:
I can agree that the CV changes aren't as exciting as the BH changes such that I expect people to move into them, but they haven't been straight up nerfed like some seem to think.

The huge cap pools and overall increased cap regeneration creates a lot of really interesting dynamics. Most things that rely on an ET based set up in literally any other part of space can be fit in ways that see themselves freed of that shackle.

I think it's very interesting, just like black holes, but I'm still not planning to live in either one of them unless I have some kind of epiphany of how it can be more fun than a Pulsar, WR, Magnetar, etc.

If you had reason to live in one before, I don't see why you think you have to move out now though.


Problem I see is that by reusing more high slots for ETs to balance it out you end up with a much reduced it at all advantage taken of the remote repair bonus which seems a bit silly to me. I can't really comment on lower class CVs as I don't have experience there but it is certainly going to tend to turn a lot of people away from the higher class ones rather than encourage them - I know a few entities have already pre-emptively moved out of theirs anyway.

I've never seen the spider tanking carrier thing be so much of an issue in CVs that it needs putting down so not really sure where this change is coming from - I don't have enough experience as mentioned of how things operate in sub C5 CVs to know if there is some big issue there.

EDIT: The whole theme of cataclysmic variables is companion objects doing huge mass transfers - the effects weren't come up with by chance so this feels like a bit of a hack to me and I'm not quite sure where the motivation came from to make the change.

Klarion Sythis wrote:

Also, never tried it, but I'm sure shield tanked caps can still run CV escalations.


They can.
Caldari State
#197 - 2014-08-14 17:18:28 UTC
On the ET thing again, there are setups, both capital and subcapital that don't need ETs at all anymore thanks to these adjustments. That actually frees up the high slots and makes excellent use of the rep bonuses. I don't think people are realizing this.
#198 - 2014-08-14 17:31:07 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
On the ET thing again, there are setups, both capital and subcapital that don't need ETs at all anymore thanks to these adjustments. That actually frees up the high slots and makes excellent use of the rep bonuses. I don't think people are realizing this.


Great for PVE, not so useful for PVP - even though the local cap regen increase is quite nice in most cases not so much that you couldn't be easily shutdown by neuting.
Caldari State
#199 - 2014-08-14 17:51:53 UTC
The bigger cap pool provides a degree of resistance naturally, plus the extra regeneration for every ship. There are both tactics and fits that can combat neuting without ETs and you can still fit optional ETs for a degree of neut protection if you think it's worth it.

Examples: fully passive HAM Tengus with scimis skirting around the edges to avoid neuts. Or, just triage face tanking limited neuts with the massive cap pool and even higher than normal regen.

There are options, and they aren't bad ones.
#200 - 2014-08-14 18:06:58 UTC
So looking at the graphs provided I'm a bit surprised you're changing pulsars at all. I understand the arguments and positioning about they are over powered BUT if you look at the provided graphs it's pretty clear pulsars are #3 in npc kills (that's about the middle of the pack) and #1 on player losses. The logic to nerfing the wh type that has the most player losses escapes me. I could see if 90% of wh npc kills were in pulsars and only 60% of the losses - then the pulsar nerf would make sense.

Are you looking at the facts and numbers or listening to folks say it's too difficult to kill chimeras and pheonix (really??? it's too hard to kill a pheonix??? That's an actual argument???)

Maybe show me a graphic that shows chimera losses in pulsars are lagging behind archon losses in the armor bonused wh. With the facts provided it honestly looks like you're trying to move pulsars from severe.ass.beating to inescapable.total.hell.death.

Fozzie, explain the logic using the provided graphs. Please.


Trinket - I've been flying shiel bhaals for several years. You don't see them on kb because they don't lose. To quote a friend "the real magic happens after you add the 6th cpr"
Forum Jump