Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

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

First post First post First post
Author
Illusion of Solitude
#981 - 2014-08-15 22:56:27 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Obil Que wrote:
SwagYolo420 wrote:
Obil Que wrote:


If rolling your hole for protection or cap combat on the wormhole are the only activities really impacted by this change, then I have no major problem with it. If you can't support your rolling ships, then I really cannot muster much sympathy


I'm not asking for your sympathy - I want proper game design.


And what about a WH spewing ships out at increasing distances by mass is "bad design". All I've heard so far is complaints about the mechanic because

1) It will increase rage rolling times
2) It will increase risk for those rolling holes for
a) Protection
b) Isolation
3) It will increase risk for those bringing cap ships to fight on a WH by dispersing fleets rendering many tactics unusable.

The first is addressed by the increased organic connections. Yes, you may still want to roll your hole but the chains you connect to should be sufficiently long that rage rolling as a necessity is a thing of the past. The second, don't care. Too bad, so sad. Protect your rolling ships, use different rolling ships, or you aren't sufficiently prepared to roll. The last is a valid concern that I hope can be addressed through modifications of the mechanic and not by scrapping it altogether. But I leave that discussion to those cap pilots and fleet commanders that know that style of combat far more than I would.



With respect, experienced and knowledgeable experts in wormhole mechanics, leaders and members or large, small, and medium corporations have all spent their time and effort explaining in detail, exactly the effects, exactly the consequences of the change, and why it is a bad unsalvegable idea.

Now you may feel that condensing it into a few short bullet points, and giving your opinion, exibits wisdom and clarity.

Sorry it does not.

Your "too bad so sad" comment and singular failiure to understand the reasons put clearly by those who DO know, epitomises the reason why people who do not understand the mechanics of wormhole space and are unwilling to learn make singuarly bad suggestions and should not be expected to evaluate decisions that affect others.

Pray to BOB that we do not decide the future of kS.
That is best left to those who know it and live in it.

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

Caldari State
#982 - 2014-08-15 23:41:01 UTC
Kirasten wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
CCP this is directed to you.

Ok this thread has reached it's natural conclusion.
We have heard from Large wormhole corporations, medium wormhole corporations, small corporations and the consistent overwhelming conclusion is that this change is completely without merit, harms all wormholers either in the short or long term and is universally despised.

We have also heard from people who have little or no understanding of the mechanics, or are from null blocks who resent wormhole life and can see it is a mechanism for starting to make it nullsec lite, actively trying to portray wormholers as weak ineffectual entities who are afraid of change, working the meta if you would rather see it that way.

There is no possible way to dress this change up with tweaks or polishing. The core idea is bad for the long term survival of wormholes.

That is the matter in the simplest clearest terms, people who are acknowledged experts in this matter have given clear detailed discourse as to the reasons why, there is actually nothing more that can be added to that, it is a comprehensive rejection of this change rationally and clearly presented to you.

You have the information you required, the responsibility is yours.



Quoted for emphasis.

25 pages and counting is enough. Make your move.

#983 - 2014-08-15 23:44:46 UTC
Kirasten wrote:


25 pages and counting is enough. Make your move.



CCP made their move, its actually your turn now.
You Are Being Monitored
#984 - 2014-08-16 01:09:48 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
CCP made their move, its actually your turn now.


Knight to C3.

Oh the pun. My sides.
Caldari State
#985 - 2014-08-16 01:15:19 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Kirasten wrote:


25 pages and counting is enough. Make your move.



CCP made their move, its actually your turn now.


Did they post something I missed? All I have seen is speculation over what people think the meaning is behind very sparse replies from ccp.
#986 - 2014-08-16 01:21:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
Kirasten wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
Kirasten wrote:


25 pages and counting is enough. Make your move.



CCP made their move, its actually your turn now.


Did they post something I missed? All I have seen is speculation over what people think the meaning is behind very sparse replies from ccp.


No actually, CCP have listened to years of discussions and ideas/feedback and have made their move with Hyperion so it is your move now with what you do and then if the changes don't work out so well they will make further changes.

People that keep whining about the changes and they need to not be made need to realise CCP have spent dev time on this, they have had some serious thought about it and will implement these changes and see how they play out. I expect they will change a few of the spawn numbers downwards but they won't scrap these changes.
Caldari State
#987 - 2014-08-16 01:33:11 UTC
Then I guess we will see.
Hole Control
#988 - 2014-08-16 06:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: calaretu
Sometihng has changed on sisi. My orca is landing 6-7 k off the wormhole instead of the 13k it landed off earlier.

edit: and then it went 12k off again hehe. Ignore this comment
#989 - 2014-08-16 08:15:20 UTC
Kirasten wrote:
Then I guess we will see.


Ewww
Avril Lavigne

Down the pole podcast "Annhhh"

Illusion of Solitude
#990 - 2014-08-16 09:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
calaretu wrote:
Sometihng has changed on sisi. My orca is landing 6-7 k off the wormhole instead of the 13k it landed off earlier.

edit: and then it went 12k off again hehe. Ignore this comment



Oh wonderful! Even better, we all love the chance of being fed as a sacrifice to the random number generator don't we?

There is NO place for blind luck in a wormhole, the single defining feature that makes life here possible, is that there are logical, consistent, repeatable mechanics and physics.

That is what has enabled us to create an exciting, thriving community in such complicated space. We learn the difficult and obscure mechanics and we overcome.

You cannot EVER overcome luck, you are either the beneficiary or the victim of the day!

Where is the challenge in that!

What satisfaction can be had when you are thrown a sacrifice, due to chance, not to your skills or tactics?

The Day that I defeat an opponent, due to random Computer created luck, and not through the balance of Abilities, skills, tactics, choices and knowledge of the game is the day that CCP forgets what has enabled this game to survive ten years.

One may as well put one's subscription in a slot machine.

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

WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#991 - 2014-08-16 12:41:33 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
No actually, CCP have listened to years of discussions and ideas/feedback and have made their move with Hyperion so it is your move now with what you do and then if the changes don't work out so well they will make further changes.

People that keep whining about the changes and they need to not be made need to realise CCP have spent dev time on this, they have had some serious thought about it and will implement these changes and see how they play out. I expect they will change a few of the spawn numbers downwards but they won't scrap these changes.

years of listening? please, show me one single place anywhere that anyone who lives/lived in WH space requested this change.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

#992 - 2014-08-16 13:01:49 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
No actually, CCP have listened to years of discussions and ideas/feedback and have made their move with Hyperion so it is your move now with what you do and then if the changes don't work out so well they will make further changes.

People that keep whining about the changes and they need to not be made need to realise CCP have spent dev time on this, they have had some serious thought about it and will implement these changes and see how they play out. I expect they will change a few of the spawn numbers downwards but they won't scrap these changes.

years of listening? please, show me one single place anywhere that anyone who lives/lived in WH space requested this change.


There actually was a thread about spawn distance a few months ago. But it was about enabling kiting, not nerfing rolling.
#993 - 2014-08-16 17:43:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Leo DHD
от себя скажу так: насчёт выброса корабля относительно его массы - ожидал какое угодно решение этого нюанса, но не на столько тупое! 2ое - вариант с реген дырой - бредовей идею я себе не мог и предположить! даже с точки зрения здравого смысла если смотреть, то это типо дырка сама решает кого ей пропустить? т.е. умеет определить тип корабля?(я понимаю, что сводится всё к массе шипа, но взгляните на перечень типа кораблей, который заявлен, для пропуска) О_о + она особенная и обладает интеллектом и поэтому восстанавливается? о_О как то бредово.(имхо)
так что патч хорош, но СИСИПИ как всегда умудрилась всё хорошее запороть 1й или 2мя НУ ПРОСТО ИДИОТИЧЕСКИМИ(в любом ракурсе) ИДЕЯМИ!!!(имхо)
Gallente Federation
#994 - 2014-08-16 18:58:54 UTC
It ain’t broke, stop fixing it. Please please please, don't screw up this mechanic and send this idea to the bin. Thank you CCP Fozzie.
C C P Alliance
#995 - 2014-08-16 21:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone. I want to thank you for all the reasoned feedback posted here, in your third party blogs, and passed along to the CSM.

We've made some changes to the plan and updated the dev blog with the new version (It may take a few minutes to apply).

The goal with this set of tweaks is to make the time required to return to the wormhole (or to get within refit range of your friends) for average jumps shorter, while keeping a significant element of risk.
To reach these goals, we're pulling the base spawn distance for large ships in significantly, to below 14km.
At the same time we'll be adding a new mechanic that modulates the randomness of your jump based on how close a wormhole is to collapse. For a fresh wormhole with none of its mass limit used, the deviation from the base distance will be a maximum of 2km. For a jump that collapses the wormhole, the maximum deviation (which can send you even closer to the wormhole or farther away) will be a maximum of 5km.

This brings the average jump distance down significantly while preventing complete safety and giving players a new element to consider in their strategic decision making.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Mercenary Coalition
#996 - 2014-08-16 22:09:23 UTC
This is better than it was. However, personally I believe many of the same problems are still present. The only real difference is the problems are chance based instead of persistent. There is still a large chance that caps will land outside of refit range which will still make it harder on small groups jumping in with capitals, there is also still a very large chance they will land far outside of jump range further reducing the use of carriers going triage on jump in.

I feel the problems can be negated and with the reasoning still being preserved by shifting to a timer-based change rather than a distance-based. It achieves the same goal and removes a lot of the problems people have with this change, and there is still a lot of risk with jumping.
#997 - 2014-08-16 22:28:23 UTC
Dear foz
I know you have good intentions with this new mecanic but I'd just like to say the time for "nice talk" is over.
This spawn mecanic is ****
And instead of scraping it you go and add anew variable to it
You are screwing over the small corps that live in wh space
I hope you get trapped in wh space with a head full of implants with an insufficient clone
Tactical-Retreat
#998 - 2014-08-16 22:29:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Well that's obviously an attempt to pursue with the current plan while trying to gather some sort of conscience Twisted.
I'd say that things are less worse, but its nowhere near good or acceptable.

In addition to the common complaints about this very bad mecanic, there is another thing that bothers me A LOT:

EVE is supposed to be about your skillpoints and the knowledge you have as a player. This knowledge is supposed to help you make better decisions and adapt to the situation ahead.

Just like for the hacking minigame, there is no way to predict randomness. Just like when I click on the next node with no element to help me weight my decision (during a hack), I will click jump and I could appear either at jump range with my orca, or at death range. Without having no way of influencing that. This is so bad...

Now I can understand the issue with capitals vanishing away in the blink of an eye in the current gameplay. But thats a small issue (big WH fights usually involve lots of capital jumped-in in advance, not one capital that goes through a wormhole. We are not in Clarion Call 3).

Fixing a small issue this way is like killing a BUG with a frikin' CHAINSAW!! You'll do more harm to your surroundings than good.


Why would a defensless orca be too OP if it was able to jump back immediately after a jump? There is still the session change timer, the polarity, align time, bubble vulnerability... Risks are already high enough!

And even combat-capable capitals, in situation where very few people would engage them anyway, how would this change be any significant except for making chain collapsing even more a pain than it is currently. (Have you ever chain collapsed? My corp did, just once -for two days-, and it was already HELL. I don't even dare to imagine with the added travel time and risk.)



Solution: (Because there is one)
You want to add an element of risk in combat situations? Fine. Make the distance bound to the weapons timer. Take the table you made in the devblog, every ship spawns at the minimum distance if no weapon timer. Then if there is a weapon timer, it appears at the max distance in proportion of the seconds remaining on the weapon timer (60sec = maximum, 30sec = between min and max, etc...).

Not only does it take away the dumb dumb dumb randomness that should not exist in EVE, allowing people to make informed choices, but it also gives an element of risk that is bound to fight situations. Without making even more a pain from what it is today, to chain-collapse.

That's not perfect, but that's as close as it can be to a good solution in my opinion.

Thanks for reading.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Iron Armada
#999 - 2014-08-16 22:41:25 UTC  |  Edited by: AutumnWind1983
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. I want to thank you for all the reasoned feedback posted here, in your third party blogs, and passed along to the CSM.

We've made some changes to the plan and updated the dev blog with the new version (It may take a few minutes to apply).

The goal with this set of tweaks is to make the time required to return to the wormhole (or to get within refit range of your friends) for average jumps shorter, while keeping a significant element of risk.
To reach these goals, we're pulling the base spawn distance for large ships in significantly, to below 14km.
At the same time we'll be adding a new mechanic that modulates the randomness of your jump based on how close a wormhole is to collapse. For a fresh wormhole with none of its mass limit used, the deviation from the base distance will be a maximum of 2km. For a jump that collapses the wormhole, the maximum deviation (which can send you even closer to the wormhole or farther away) will be a maximum of 5km.

This brings the average jump distance down significantly while preventing complete safety and giving players a new element to consider in their strategic decision making.


This change remains terrible. Distance based purely on mass does not promote more activity or new interesting activity. Post change the most viable meta is T3 blobs and up engaging with caps is much more difficult. We're losing the ability to combat refit, small groups are losing the ability to roll, and we're not modifying the meta at all to promote kiting or anything else.

Ask yourself if you would make these same changes to cyno spawn mechanics. If not, then its probably a terrible idea.

James Arget for CSM 8! http://csm.fcftw.org

WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#1000 - 2014-08-16 23:46:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. I want to thank you for all the reasoned feedback posted here, in your third party blogs, and passed along to the CSM.

We've made some changes to the plan and updated the dev blog with the new version (It may take a few minutes to apply).

The goal with this set of tweaks is to make the time required to return to the wormhole (or to get within refit range of your friends) for average jumps shorter, while keeping a significant element of risk.
To reach these goals, we're pulling the base spawn distance for large ships in significantly, to below 14km.
At the same time we'll be adding a new mechanic that modulates the randomness of your jump based on how close a wormhole is to collapse. For a fresh wormhole with none of its mass limit used, the deviation from the base distance will be a maximum of 2km. For a jump that collapses the wormhole, the maximum deviation (which can send you even closer to the wormhole or farther away) will be a maximum of 5km.

This brings the average jump distance down significantly while preventing complete safety and giving players a new element to consider in their strategic decision making.

congratulations on NOT fixing the issue.
the problem isnt with the spawn distance, the problem is with the concept of spawning outside of jump range: we dont want it.
if you havnt figured it out yet then nothing new will make any difference so im done with this thread.

PS: i mean, if youre going to push through changes with such obvious and strong negative feedback anyway, why even bother putting up a feedback thread? its actually insulting

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Forum Jump