Update on HICs and Wormholes


(CCP Rise) #1

Hello again!

Our announcement for a set of big balance changes coming this October sparked some strong feedback about our attitude towards wormholes and specifically the HIC as a tool for reliably collapsing wormholes. We want to respond to that discussion as well as we can and also put forward a solution for the HIC issue in October.

First of all, let us apologize for sounding dismissive of wormholers in the original blog. That was not intentional and we care greatly for our j-space residents. Mentioning that they would be ‘collateral damage’ during this change was meant to acknowledge that we are affecting wormholes even though wormholes aren’t the reason for the change. We could have used better words and gone further to explain why we would make a change knowing that it would have a negative impact on play experience, so we’ll try and do that now.

When wormholes were added to the game there was a strong and clear vision for what kind of gameplay they would provide: mystery, danger, and uncertainty would reign supreme. Only daring explorers and adrenaline junkies would be willing to venture deep into wormhole space. This is why we have mechanics like randomized connections, unstable collapse mechanics, and no local. It’s an awesome vision that we still appreciate and are still trying to work towards in several areas of EVE, but, it is definitely not the reality of how wormhole space works today.

Almost immediately, you analyzed the systems and learned to manipulate the mechanics in your favor. Wormhole space was never even meant to be habitable and now we have long-standing wormhole empires. From the beginning, players threw out the original vision for wormholes and made them their own. We love this. This a great example of what a sandbox can be.

The problem is when we run into design decisions where the reality of the wormhole environment clashes strongly with the original vision. HICs and their role as a tool for controlling wormhole connections in a safe and predictable way is a perfect example of how stark this contrast can be. If we made decisions based off the original vision for the space, we would certainly have no problem taking HICs away. Doing so would promote uncertainty, which was the aim of the system to begin with. On the other hand, if we really wanted to step into the reality of wormhole life and support safe and consistent hole control, why stop at supporting HICs. We could make mass limits explicit and visible or give remote tools for hole collapse or a number of other solutions that wouldn’t be as contrived as depending on an unrelated bonus for a specific module on one class of ship that isn’t otherwise important in wormhole space.

So, when we come to a situation like this one, where we don’t feel satisfied with taking the tool away because we know the pain it will cause, but we also don’t feel satisfied with providing new tools that go directly against the core design of the space, we often lean towards placing priority on the change we intend and understand (taking away 500mn MWD HICs in this case) and trusting wormholers to continue to adapt and define their own rules, as they have since they first left k-space behind.

But, it’s clear that asking for adaptation in this case was too much. We underestimated how critical this tool is and even though we would love to take a more holistic look at collapse mechanics, we understand that the existing behavior needs to be supported until that happens. We are now planning to introduce a new module in October specifically for ship mass reduction. This module can be fit to Heavy Interdictors and when activated it will reduce the ship’s mass by a percentage and also reduce the ship’s base velocity, which should rule out any MWD tricks. We are still working out specifics but you can count on this module being available at the same time that we make the changes to Warp Disruption Field Generators.

We hope this will take care of your concerns and we hope to continue improving our support for your unique play style.

Thanks to everyone who gave thoughtful feedback on this.


Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!
Potential Fix for WHers for the 500mn HIC
Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!
Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!
(Capqu) #2

tldr

ccp are caving to faux outrage from a tiny niche of the game which get up in arms over any change to their precious rmt & csm exploiting empires

meanwhile valuable changes to the actual game are delayed due to dealing with this garbage every single time any change that slightly affects the way they play is announced

the wormholer victim complex and mentality that they deserve special treatment to never be affected negatively is a cancer on this game and its development


(Murkar Omaristos) #3

A very welcome correction, thank you @CCP_Rise :slight_smile:

This was a much needed fix and I am happy to see CCP responding to player feedback when something has been broken beyond belief for no good reason.

I will be curious to see the actual mass reduction stats. At the moment we put three bubbles on a HIC to reduce the mass substantially so there’s little to no risk of collapsing a hole when you go through, and also so the HIC can fit through frigate holes. If the mass reduction is equal to that then it’s a good fix. If it’s less, then this bandaid will be distinctly meh


(Jonathan smart) #4

thanks king


(Rivr Luzade) #5

Nice. One question, though: Why not like this from the beginning?

You would have gotten a lot less negative feedback if you had come up right away with this module or script. Please don’t tell me that you didn’t knew and that you had to look at data and feedback. You had this chance since you first announced the HIC changes at the last EVE Vegas, and people have been telling you the exact same feedback since then that you received now in the Balance Pass topic.


(Arrendis) #6

Rise;

Thank you for moving this up to October, so it goes in concurrent with the changes to HICs. Will the new module be seeded on the market, so there isn’t a significant lag time in when wormholers lose the current use of HICs and when they can regain that function with the new modules?

Also, I’d just like to take a moment to say, nobody’s really suggested ‘safe and consistent hole control’, just consistent within the current margins. Those margins aren’t 0. It’s not perfect. And nobody expects it to be.


(Maddy Zabbara) #7

Looks good enough for now, I understand the not intended origional intent of HICs. And see the need to trash Lurch HICs.

Is there a fear that these modules can still lead to a similar concern?

Will these modules have BPC/BPOs seeded before the update so WH players who have extended logistics chains to deal with have them available when the update hits?


(Murkar Omaristos) #8

tldr
ccp are caving to faux outrage from a tiny niche of the game which get up in arms over any change to their precious rmt & csm exploiting empires

Also known as responding to player feedback.


(Summer VonSturm) #9

What scares me most is that you had zero clue how severely the original plan would have effected your playerbase.

@CCP_Rise Was there any serious thought or research done into the effects, or is this a side effect of having an almost fully sov null CSM?


(Querns) #10

ccp are caving to faux outrage from a tiny niche of the game which get up in arms over any change to their precious rmt & csm exploiting empires

I mean, is this particular flavor of bile usually directed at wormhole dudes? I’m used to seeing it on our windshields. Did you get lost?


(Dominous Nolen) #11

We’re still paying players and should have the same consideration for our play style as null.


(Brisc Rubal) #12

Thanks for getting this out, Rise.

I’m glad that we were able to resolve this issue for the WHers and do so before the October release.


(Alderson Point) #13

A rational, reasonable and fair response. You are to be commended.

Thank you for listening.


(Sophia Mileghere) #14

Then why did you make them habitable? You could have treated them like the Shattered WHs.

Back to the subject:
Thanks for the announcement. Too bad that it needed a lot of protests before.


(Harlan Adoudel) #15

I put the odds that CCP forgets to make the module point you (thus allowing instawarp HICs due to reduced mass) at about 20%, even though it’s been pointed out about a dozen times.


(Capqu) #16

i realise that, but unlike goonies there is actual proof when it comes to wormholers

the wormhole csm was permanently banned from the game for nda breaking leaks to his fellow wormholers
there are numerous examples of high proflie wormholers (garmon etc) rmting out and getting permas


(Harrigan VonStudly) #17

No one should be crying about a certain group of players crying because all players cry about something. Null sec inhabitors are the biggest tearfest generator there are in the game. Probably worse than high sec wankers. Live and let die


(Querns) #18

Oh, this is historical stuff, then. I thought you were throwing bile at the CURRENT CSM. I was like, “What? They ain’t got a dude on this year.”


(Capqu) #19

no, my apologies if it came across that way


(Querns) #20

s’all good, my ningen