Will you be increasing bomb HP in those wormholes to compensate for the extra damage?

Will you be modifying sleeper abilities to take account of these changes? As I can forsee some of the changes, for example cap effects, will make things somewhat gamebreaking if you do not.

The PvP side may be interesting and favour the brave, the PvE side does not let us modify behavior to outwit the enemy, just work around difficuilties if that is even possible.

Does the wolf rayet small weapon damage bonus apply to rapid light missiles?

Does the wolf rayet small weapon damage bonus apply to rapid light missiles?

I especially like the heightened (3x) small weapon damage bonus for the new Wolf-Rayet and the black hole "speedy PVP". Maybe it will lead to assault frigate / destroyer PVP gangs and maybe assault frigate / destroyer farming.

Question: Do light scout drones (e.g. Hobgoblin II's) and rapid light missile launchers qualify as small weapons systems? If RLMLs qualify, I could see a lot of armor-tanked RLML Scythe Fleet Issues being used to instablap the AF gangs or deal absurd amounts of damage in a short time, reducing Wolf-Rayets to RLML gangs.

Does the wolf rayet small weapon damage bonus apply to rapid light missiles?

Yes, since it applies to the light missiles themselves.

unsubbing all accounts and killing myself

Easier to kill carrier's capacitor in Pulsar.

From a PvP perspective, yeah, that'll be pretty cool. But I think that it'll eliminate capital escalations in Pulsars. It was already pretty borderline, and if the sleeper neuts get an 86% bonus, I don't think you'll often be able to find a capital fleet in a site inside Pulsars anymore. It just won't be doable.

From a PvP perspective, yeah, that'll be pretty cool. But I think that it'll eliminate capital escalations in Pulsars. It was already pretty borderline, and if the sleeper neuts get an 86% bonus, I don't think you'll often be able to find a capital fleet in a site inside Pulsars anymore. It just won't be doable.

sleepers haven't revived buffs from systems in years why would they now?

To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs.

Pulsar - Very interestingGǪ Shield tanked bhallgorns anyone? Not a bad change I feel for pvp. For pve I must ask, will the nos and neut changes be applied to the sleepers?

20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community:

1) Rage rolling becomes much more annoying for large groups. This limits their ability to find content that they can take, whether it be site-runners to kill (which you *have* to rage-roll for, incidentally) or other large groups. The proposed change slows down chain-rolling, slowing down the speed at which content can be found. This also has the side effect of making farming safer, because the probability being rolled into whilst running sites comes down to how many holes can be opened whilst your caps are not in their POS. Less holes=less chance of dying to everyone else.

2) Rage rolling becomes essentially impossible for small groups. They also have to find content, and rolling the chain is often the only way to reliably find content of interest - whether that be PvP or PvE or anything else. The proposed changes stop you from being able to do this without fighting the larger groups... which you can't do because numbers are important in every case. Small groups can no longer rage-roll consistently, especially given that most larger groups will seed scouts into their chain.

3) Committing capitals to wormholes outside of home systems requires winning the fight or losing the cap... which in turn means that it won't be committed by anyone that hasn't already got the forces on-grid to win it. The proposed change ensures that capitals shoved into another wormhole can't get back into home system. Whereas we currently see Triage used to balance out fights against bigger entities, smaller entities can't afford to lose the triage carrier every time, so they'll just stop bringing them. Less fights is bad for everyone.

4) Using our capitals in nullsec (and arguably losec) means losing them. We're not stupid. The proposed change would strand our capitals 15-20km away from the hole. The fight would become a race against time: will they be able to form up capitals/supercapitals to kill our triage archon before we get it back into the hole? In most cases, the answer will be no. Power projection means that we can no longer commit capitals. It's bad enough at present, without increasing the scope of the problem. Once again, less fights is bad for everyone.

5) Sub-capital wormholes also suffer from the problem because orcas land far away too. The major difference between rolling C4 wormholes and C5 wormholes is that C4 wormholes use Orcas. If those orcas are guaranteed to be in danger, they're also guaranteed to die. We'll take orca kills any time of the day. So will other groups. This means that C4 groups also need to be fielding support fleets for their orca if they don't fancy losing them daily. Bad for small groups, which means they'll leave, which means we lose more groups and hence, lose content.


The error here is the belief that all groups can afford to field support groups. We can't. We aren't 10000 man coalitions, because wormholes can't support that kind of lifestyle. There is a maximum limit to how many people can fit into a wormhole, and unless we're now expecting all pilots to be on all of the time, that means that this change will make smaller groups increasingly unfeasible.

I originally made most of these points on a reddit post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2cro9k/where_are_the_devblogs/cjihkl9. Some inital discussion over it can also be found.


EDIT: A better solution would be to invert the numbers: have distance landed be proportional to a function of mass and speed, making it so that lighter and faster ships landing further away from the hole. This would allow us to use kiting HACs as well as brawling T3s.

EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be inversely proportional to mass (higher mass=close) and directly proportional to maximum speed (higher maximum speed = further away).

To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs.

Yes, since it applies to the light missiles themselves.

As the CEO of a small corp, I have very mixed feelings about these changes.

Some of the changes I see don't look to me to be content friendly. Rolling WHs will be more risky, require more people, and take more time than it currently does, and none of that is good in my opinion.

Sadly, eve is largely a numbers game. Most fleets of 5 are met with at least double that when a fight is actually found. I like WHs because they are an environment where a small corp like mine can be somewhat relevant and effective with the right choices and tactics. Numbers still win, but we at least we don't have to worry about the kind of fleet escalations that are often found in low/null.

Taking away our ability to be effective content creators for our members (and those we engage, btw) is a death sentence for both sides. Not every corp wants to be hundreds or thousands of people. I accept this limits our options as size is the main barrier to entry in Null sec. Please don't make that barrier also apply to WH space.

Wouldn't it be a more so balancing factor for pve if this were the case, maybe if they got a smaller bonus. It is incredibly safe to do pve in pulsars and incredibly fast to do in magnatars, there is nothing counter balancing the effects of these wormholes and their effect on how safely or quickly you can run sites.

I would like to believe that your intention isn't to prevent emergent game play but I have been playing this game for almost a year and every time I find something that works for me, you guys go ahead and Nerf it. I am getting very sick of it. The fact that the first third of the blog post is you trying to assuage us that you are not in fact trying to kill the current gameplay says a lot about the pill you are making us swallow.

I train drones, I start hearing sentry cruisers will be getting nerfed, I move into a Cataclysmic wormhole, you set out to nerf the RR, I look to use my otherwise completely useless and overpriced Legion in a Wolf-Rayet, you change the Wolf-Rayet bonus to something that again is totally useless. No armour ships buffer tank sleeper sites because they don't passively regenerate. Rolling wormholes is already hard enough for a small corporation and now you are making it untenably risky for a small corporation like mine to do it. We already only just get by in our WH. Where do we go? We can't make any isk in HS and nullsec is dominated by a few mega alliances to whose every need and whim you pander to. Do you nerf everything I try so I have to go buy plex? Did I join a game or a pyramid scheme? as an illustration here is how I've felt in my first year of eve.

After you've played a few more years you'll level up to then to and finally to .

Keep going, you're almost there.

(Also, no one really cares about your self-entitlement whine.)

If the small weapons bonus affects rapid light missiles, does it also affect drones?

Well - considering your chart Cataclysmic Variables are disliked second to only Black Hole and your idea to fix that is keep it exactly the same except for a nerf on the one attribute you shouldn-¦t have touched "Remote Capacitor Transmitter amount" the sole reason for the few who are living in there is that their carriers are pretty good inside - and after this change everybody living inside in one is pretty much flying them out, well except the ones needed in higher class holes for escalations.

No matter how hard i try to find any reason at all, that someone not already living in a cataclysmic is wanna live in one now, im unable to -
without any exaggeration i think you just created the new "Black Hole"

Lookin at the wolf rayet double bonus to small guns

Enyos are pretty beast in wolf rayets as is. I mean we can nearly take on a t3 fleet with them. Now your gonna double the dps?? Thats pretty sick but have you looked at a rlml orthrus or cerb in the new wolf rayet? They spit out close to 2k dps up 50km away or more! As amazing as that would be I think that would be OP as ****! If you guys are aware of this cool. I'll start planning af/hac gangs to break t3 blobs that wanna play in my home

It will be interesting to see how Phoenixes with Huginn support will be in Black Holes.

To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs.

Lookin at the wolf rayet double bonus to small guns

Enyos are pretty beast in wolf rayets as is. I mean we can nearly take on a t3 fleet with them. Now your gonna double the dps?? Thats pretty sick but have you looked at a rlml orthrus or cerb in the new wolf rayet? They spit out close to 2k dps up 50km away or more! As amazing as that would be I think that would be OP as ****! If you guys are aware of this cool. I'll start planning af/hac gangs to break t3 blobs that wanna play in my home

Fits:
Cerb
DPS: 691(812) * 2.72 = 1879.52(2208.64)
Tank: -6k shields +3k armor = 26k ehp
Speed: 1844 m/s unlinked
Range: 85.4km w/fury 114km w/faction(-125dps)

Orthrus
DPS: 666(781) * 2.72 = 1811.52(2124.32)
Tank: ~17k (terrible)
Speed: 2696 m/s unlinked
Range: 47.5km w/fury 63.3 w/faction(-117dps)

Armor RLML Legion does ~500 dps which translates to ~1360 dps w/~200k armor ehp
Armor RLML Loki does ~350 dps which translates to ~952dps w/~120k armor ehp

I'm sure there are much better fits than those that I just threw together quickly but you can see my point.

I'd imagaine both these ships would be armor tanked with webs and points in the mid. Still a weak tank but one of these would be able to take out a frig fleet in seconds.

(black hole changes)

(wolf-rayet changes)

The biggest problem with frigates in W-space is that they pop so easily. To encourage smaller ships, if you were able to decrease the sig radius even more for frigate- and destroyer-class ships, they might see more use due to being much harder to hit.

Yes, since it applies to the light missiles themselves.

[Guardian, Fleet Guardian]
Armor EM Hardener II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Dark Blood Reactor Control Unit
Damage Control II
Armor Thermic Hardener II

10MN Afterburner II
Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I

Large 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairer
Large 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter
Large 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairer
Large 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairer
Large 'Regard' Remote Capacitor Transmitter
Large 'Solace' Remote Armor Repairer

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump II

(red giant changes)

The bomb attention makes perfect sense, considering the other bonuses, so this sounds great. I also wonder if bomb explosion velocity would be suitable for tweaking here as well.

I'm sure the Wolf Rayet people will feel a bit sad, but I get the concern.

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

Role Bonus (Carrier):

• Immune to all wormhole environmental effects

Role Bonus (Dreadnought):

• Immune to all wormhole environmental effects

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

8663 DPS tank is a far cry from full house aggro on a quad like we do now. No way in hell I'm going back to staggering the escalations, that takes way too long.

Well, if it means you have to field, say, 4 chain archons instead of 1 triage and 1+ drone DPS carriers, I'm not sure your "it's faster" is actually applicable.

I mean, as long as the Moros never don't have a target, you're not gaining any speed either way. Even when we're fielding 3 Moros instead of 2 (more than that and targeting/webbing gets too chaotic), we have almost no downtime in the site for escalations.

Still, if it's too much for ye, move to a system that doesn't have a local rep penalty...

Dem Wolf-Rayet bonuses...

I, too, enjoy 15m sigRad 25kEHP Assault frigates zipping around around at 1000m/s doing 650dps. RIP. Literally no reason to ever bring anything else ever for PvP.

I'm also anxious to see the first vids of the new 33km/s Succubus. Yes, that's kilometers, as in 33000 meters. Ofc, if you want one that is combat capable, stick to a MWD and zoom around at only 21km/s.

Well, it should spawn some awesome pvp vids. vOv

If I did my math correctly, in a c6 an enyo will be doing 414*200% = 414+828 = *insert dubstep jam 1200+DPS

A catalyst can break 1500 but with less tank, less speed and higher sig. Pretty scary if you ask me.

Assuming Fozzie is correct and the implementation stays the same, a RLML Tengu in a C6 W-R can drop 2340 DPS, and a cloaky RLML Tengu can drop ~1300 (with 50k EHP and 500k self-rep on Ancillary). With almost perfect damage application and 30km range to boot.

I mean, that's just silly.



So move to a non-Cataclysmic? I'm also not too sure how you manage to coordinate targeting and webbing with that many dreads on field. Even with 3, it gets rather chaotic. 5-6 dreads, you're going to have a lot of targeting overlap, BSes dying while others are still locking them, two dreads shooting at the same target, etc, and actually getting webs on all of those being shot will be nearly impossible (especially since it takes those BSes like 30 seconds to slow down from full speed).

Assuming Fozzie is correct and the implementation stays the same, a RLML Tengu in a C6 W-R can drop 2340 DPS, and a cloaky RLML Tengu can drop ~1300 (with 50k EHP and 500k self-rep on Ancillary). With almost perfect damage application and 30km range to boot.

I mean, that's just silly.

well in effect your statement says that your ****** doing anoms in a CV, so now your group has to move into a different variable. congrats you have made a new black hole system.....

So move to a non-Cataclysmic? I'm also not too sure how you manage to coordinate targeting and webbing with that many dreads on field. Even with 3, it gets rather chaotic. 5-6 dreads, you're going to have a lot of targeting overlap, BSes dying while others are still locking them, two dreads shooting at the same target, etc, and actually getting webs on all of those being shot will be nearly impossible (especially since it takes those BSes like 30 seconds to slow down from full speed).

Nope, only doing them the way you're doing them. Our method of escalations (triage carrier, staggered waves) will continue to work just fine.

I mean, the entire point of system effects is to force you to change your playstyle in those systems, to shake up the playing field. While I think the cap transfer nerf is overdoing it, as it breaks even sub-capital cap chains, I see no problem with a system effect that favors solo logi making it more difficult to successfully running chained logi operations in that system.

with all respect, i lived in a c6 CV for 3 years, and have tried the non tras logi as a backbone to a fleet, and triage fits even in the current setup it is extremely hard to pull off triage carriers in a c6 due to you only get 50% of the self repair, meaning that you effectively use 4x the cap of normal to keep yourself up, while you can manage for a triage carrier it is hard, why most groups have gone to the pantheon setups. now the oirneros work to a certain degree (i have flown one before, the issue you run into is if you get energy neutralized. while this can be mitigated by bringing 5+ logi onto the field this still means that you need 2-3x the logi boats you need currently. and still have capacitor issues for the entire fleet. as it stands atm you can use 2 guardians using stage escalations)

The big issue with the old stats is that its harder to brake a cap chain not impossible tho i've seen it done with smart FC(s) and good tactics and pilots. if you wish to counter the old effects this can be done with ewar and or nos boosts, it would level the playing field for pvp while still retaining peoples ability to run anoms without making it the worst variable by far in the game, it already has less use than other effects, this change would cripple them as currently proposed primarily for small-mid sized groups

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

Your assumption about Black Holes low activity may be WRONG. Most WH PVP Is not by setting mutually agreed time and place for dueling.

Consider that maybe when PVP roams go to black holes they currently seldom find anybody to fight !!!

Most WH PVP is about roams for ambush tears or attempts at defending convoys or ISK making ops.
Maybe low PVP is due to no sleeper or site farmers settled in black holes. Is PVE farming harder or mining more difficult?

So if you make WH more interesting places to fight , that does not ensure lots more PVP will occur there if the chances of encountering other players remains the same.


Consider making Black Holes into WH systems that lots of convoys want to travel through.

(Convoys attract PVP roams due to value and flood of tears. People might even settle black holes as pirate bases!!! Meaning that black hole has people hanging around large amounts of time just looking for fights.)

How? One easy two step implementation is...

#1 Make Black Holes into WH space nexus points with say double the number of WH connections to other WH systems for class.
#2 Go one step further and give adjacent WH systems connected to black hole systems a greater chance of connecting to high sec or null sec.
Thus Null Sec folk can find shortcuts to high sec markets by traveling routes through Black hole systems.
Similarly higher class WH dwellers will also tend to find that routes to high sec markets pass through black holes systems.

Storywise you can say spinning black holes tend to generate or attract wh connections.


(Of course if you really just want to make it hard for bums to settle in WH systems - that is good too and you can ignore my observations. And despite the spin you would still be telling the true. Harder is simply harder and not forcing people out.)

Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now.

Agreed - the new cata bonuses and debuffs make no sense as proposed. The existing debuff pushes fleets towards remote rep versus local rep (and the implications for dreads vs carriers), and now you propose adding another debuff that would hamstring sustained remote rep? How is this promoting content creation, other than making our residents in cata systems easy prey? How does the proposed changes balance cata systems? They were already mostly disliked, but usable for remote rep fleets. Nerfing remote rep fleets just makes them completely disliked IMO.

Overall these changes smack of promoting full time PvP gameplay and offer nothing to individuals or groups that are PvE-centric. While the intro went to great lengths to paint a picture of not forcing players out of j-space, I think that is exactly what will occur for those individuals and corps that prefer a PvE-centric game play and selected specific WH systems to settle and operate in that fashion. Yes, PvP is *always* a possibility, however, making the system largely untenable except for large corporations and large fleets will push small corporations out IMO.

Without bonuses damps, you get them down to like 30k lock range with stacking penalty (from their 85 base fleeted). Looks pretty sad for balancing, only upside that those things 'only' got 80k ehp and 'only' move 2.6km/s (dual prop hurr)

This is how I feel. My group is more PVE-centric. We aren't looking for fights but some of us will engage if provoked. But largely we just want to be left alone. It really takes away the fun for a lot of newer players to build something and then have it smashed right off the bat because... "pvp is the best thing ever lets go smash some new players stuff!" mentality. It really seems that this is what CCP is promoting now with these changes. I am concerned that as a PVE-player I will be reduced to hi-sec play only unless I somehow join a large alliance and want to continuous fight instead of actually playing industry.

Hey everyone! This thread is for all of your feedback and discussion surrounding the wormhole effect changes from our recently released dev blog.

So from reading the wormhole effect changes, you'll be removing the targeting range bonus on pulsars?

To harp on cataclysmics once more,

Take a look around the game. Spider-tanking carriers are the ideal fleet comp these days in nullsec (do they even field subcaps any more?). The flaw you're addressing isn't with cataclysmics, it's with carriers in general. I'd advise you don't punish the wormhole community and instead take a hard look at them as a platform.

As much as I hate to suggest it, it would make more sense to make it a penalty to energy rr range in CVs than amount (given cv generally has a boost to remote assistance amount), bringing tactics back into play to break the energy spider.

We've been discussing this as well. Allows smart FCs to strategically bump carriers out of cap range while not eliminating the mechanism entirely.

1. If you buff the "Black Hole Effect" you make it more interesting for large groups. Black hole was a chance for smaller
Corporations.

2. Allow the possibilty to attach/reinforce a WH system. The attacker should not have the initiative at all in EVE.

3. Allow the owner to upgrade a Wormhole. The owner should be able to get some advantages that deter "fun attacks" or
make them unattraktive at least.

-+-¦ -à-+-ç-¦-é-ü-Å -¦-ï-+-ï-¦-¦-é-î -¦-â-Ç-+-¦-+-+-Å -¦-+-¦-+ -+ -+-Ç-+-ç-¦-¦ , -+-+ -¦-ü-¦ -Ç-¦-¦-+-+ , -¦-+-+-Ç-+-ü : -â -+-¦-+-Å -¦-¦-¦ -â-ç-¦-é-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-+-¦-é-+-+-¦ -+-+-¦-+-+-ü-¦-¦ , -¦-ü-é-î -+-+ -ê-¦-+-ü -¦-+-+-¦-Ç-¦-é-î -¦-+ -+-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-Å -¦-+-+-¦-Ç-+-+-+ , -¦ -+-+ -¦-ï-à-+-¦-â -+-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-Å -+-é-¦-+-Ä-ç-+-é-î -+-+-¦-+-+-ü-¦-â , -+-¦-¦-+-+-¦-+-Ç-+-¦-¦-é-î -¦-¦-¦-¦-â-+-é-ï -+ -ü-¦-+-+-¦ -¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-¦ - -+-+-+-â-ç-+-é-î -+-¦-+-¦-¦ -¦-¦-+-î-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-ü-é-¦-¦-ê-+-¦-ü-Å -+-Ç-+-+-+-¦-ç-¦-+-+-ï-+-+ -+-¦-+-+-+ -¦-¦-â-à -+-¦-ü-Å-å-¦-¦ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-+-¦-+ -¦-Ç-¦-+-¦-+-+ ? -Å -+-Ç-¦-¦-Ç-¦-ü-+-+ -+-+-+-+-+-¦-Ä , -ç-é-+ -+-+-+-¦-+-+ -+-+-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-ü-Å -+-ç-¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦ -+-¦-+-+-¦-+-¦-+-+-¦ , -+-+ -+-+-ç-+-+ -+-+-¦ - -+-¦-é . -+ -Å -+-¦ -à-+-ç-â -+-+-¦-é-+-é-î -+-ü-+-¦-+-¦-å-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-¦-Ç-â , -¦-+-é-+-Ç-¦-Å -+-+-ç-+-+ -+-+-¦ -+-¦-Ç-¦-ü-é-¦-¦-é -+-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-ü-Å -¦-ü-¦ -¦-+-+-î-ê-¦ -+ -¦-+-+-î-ê-¦. -ú -+-¦-+-Å -¦-+-+-î-ê-¦-Å -+-Ç-+-ü-î-¦-¦ - -+-¦ -+-¦-ç-+-+-¦-é-î -¦-+-¦-Ç-â-¦ -+-+-¦-¦-+ -+-+-ü-é-¦ -¦-ï-ê-¦-+-¦-+-¦-¦-+-+-+-¦ -¦-â-Ç-+-¦-+-+-¦ , -Å -+-¦ -à-+-ç-â -¦-¦-+-¦-é-î -¦-+-¦-ü-ü-+-ç-¦-ü-¦-+-¦ "-¦-¦-Ç-+-ü -+-¦ -¦-¦-+-é-+-+-Å-é-+-Ç" , -+-Ç-+-ü-é-+ -à-+-ç-â -â-é-+-ç-+-+-é-î -ä-+-+-¦-+-ü-+-¦-ï-¦ -¦-ü-+-¦-¦-é

Well they have a choice between breaking CV to being hideously OP now and nerfing again once capitals are rebalanced OR nerfing CVs now and doing the carrier rebalance in their own sweet time.

Now, as to why this is being done.

The reason for the CV rejig, ostensibly, is that there are less people bearing and thus PVping and living, in cat var wormholes than WR's etc.

Currently, the capacitor penalty and local rep nerf discorages the usual species of wormhole bear, which is the solo or multiboxing neckbearded nerd running a solo Tengu. You can get away with solo in C1-2 by adding a bit of extra pimp, and lets be honest, it's as hard as falling out of bed. But C3+ it becomes impossible to solo.

The real reason the changes are coming in is obviously, but not explicitly stated, to weaken (read: completely nobble) some of the extreme possibilities available in C5 and C6 Cat vars where spider tanking Pantheon, Slowcat or Coolcat carriers can make everything a giant steaming pile of *****.

Certainly, the changes will address the potential for spider tanking carriers with uber pimp fits (ISK being a matter of when, not if in C5s) to throw up anomalies, but this will be done via basically nobbling every potential use for carriers in any class of wormhole (even though it's less of an issue in C4/C5).

The problem is, even right now, people are deserting CV's. I know we are, because it's pointless having a solo PVE nerf (local rep nerf) and an RR buff (for defensive PVP and POS repping shennanigans) coupled with a capital and Guard/Augoror nerf.

i mean, what's the point of CV's now? It's been turned from a poorly populated type of wormhole into the new Black Hole effect.

I think this is really a solution looking for a problem. It certainly won't fix the ostensible problem (population) but it goes overboard on fixing the explicit problem of C5-C6 craziness.

Webbing lokis will still be ridiculous in a wr - they have pretty high resists in normal systems, the extra armor hp means huge ehp coupled with tiny sig.

With black holes it still takes ages to get into warp with anything that is plated or a captial vessel - especially since webbing it into warp is nerfed.

Wormhole environments are already overtanked as it is - do you really have to hand out free erebus bonuses + HG slave set to anyone in a c5/6 WR?

I quite like random spawning from wormholes, for the reasons that the devs gave. but I think there should be introduced a deployable structure that "stabilizes" the wormhole and drastically reduces the distance spawned on the other side (3000m max for Orca) . this way you can jump through safely and on your way back you're on home ground and the distance spawned away isn't as much of a problem for getting ganked. To balance this this wormhole stabilizer should be visable for everyone on there overview; so if you try set one up on the other end you run the risk of being immediately ganked.
This also opens up the possibility of a wormhole destabilizer that increases the distance spawned; making shield fleets potentially viable.

On a side note:

CCP I have a suggestion. If you find it feasible, split the CSM into three smaller CSM councils of three or four people. One for Null, Lowsec and W-space. They would all have the same duties as the current incarnation of the CSM does, but they would also represent their own areas of space. Null would have no responsibilities nor any say in W-space or Lowsec. And the other two councils would follow the same guidelines respectively. Also with this paradigm for CSM it would break the sheer numbers that Null Alliances have to control the vote for the majority of the CSM. It would give other organizations to have a primary voice.

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.

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.

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 GÇô 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 GÇô 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 GÇô he would need to end siege to be repped and recharged with cap GÇô 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 GÇô a ship that is now practically the most useless ship, aside from escalating a site in high class , you could have inside a CV GÇô 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 GÇô 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 GÇô (then contrary to common believe Pantheon Carrier in CV can be brought down GÇô 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 GÇô 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.

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.

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 stations). I'm beginning to think that that is the issue, you hear what you want from us not what we are actually saying.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"

I can think of 3 pulsar chimera losses alone that total ~200bn between them

come again?

Before we get caught up in who lost the most expensive chimera...

It's not so much of a nerf to Pulsars as it is providing a viable counter to the shield capitals that reside in them. A well fit Phoenix or Chimera is a flying fortress in those systems and takes quite a lot to bring down, especially if you super pimp it, which is viable with the bonuses there. I'm a big fan of Pulsars, but the neut bonus was probably needed to tone down the more extreme situations.

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)

Then you might as well move into a no effect so you dont have to deal with the self rep penalty or gimped logi fits that are much easier killed than logi fits in a no effect. Sure you can fit around it but those fits would never be able to stand up to a pvp fight if one occurred while you were running sites even thou you had fitted for your system you are still out classed by any halfway decent pvp fleet as all they would have to do is jam your gimped logi (with no eccm because countering the effects won't let you fit it) and point people, the sleepers would do the rest.

Nothing about pulsars makes them deadlier to a player. It's a tank system. It helps you both with raw EHP (that can result in passive regen tank) and capacitor. If a ton of people are dying there, it's because of some other factor like it being a popular system for PVE players who get hunted. Definitely not because of the system bonuses.

Well, hopefully Fozzie answers you then, but correlation doesn't equal causation as they say.

Maybe the high rate of deaths are all the bads who don't pay attention to what hole they're in, then die in a fire because they brought an armor fleet. Whatever the reason, I don't think it's something that means a neut bonus is out of line.

I think pulsar pvp loss is high for a couple of reasons.

High end, no one likes to jump into a magnatar and get alpha'd by tier 3 bc, ishtar sentries or whatever - being alphad as you uncloak is not a fun form of pvp. I feel pvp doesn't happen in magnatars because of alpha.

Wolf-rayet - I would say good fights happen just a lot of stalemate because it wh boni help the armor doctrine survivablity. I'm not sure that needs to change. Higher amount of fights, but fewer losses.

red giant and cataclysmic - if you don't live in them then it's tough to figure out how to have a bigger fight. Armor/shield bonus are straight forward, so it's easy to fight there. The more difficult to get your arms around bonus in these 2 wh I think my move the fight elsewhere to some degree.

It's pretty easy to see from the graphs that magnatar, red giant and wolf-rayet are the rage roller wh and that black hole and cataclysmic are the least used holes.

I would think overall though, it's kind of... I dunno.... not so sane to nerf pvp in the wh that is way ahead of the others in pvp losses. It's crazy lopsided already - why make it easier to get kills in there. (I'm starting to think you like to pull the wings and legs off of flies for fun)