Wormhole Abuse

This is where the best suggestions are moved to, so discussion can carry on with moderation and be more easily read by the volunteers and development team.

Moderator: Support Moderators

Forum rules
Opening new topics in this forum is not possible, you may only reply to existing topics.

Only users with 50 or more posts can reply to topics.

This forum is moderated, so any posts will have to be approved by a moderator before being published.
User avatar
Winchester
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 17661
Joined: Tue 24 Mar, 2009 00:44
Reputation: 763
Location: The World Wide Cesspool

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Winchester » Fri 18 Mar, 2011 20:09

Puck wrote:
Ribbentrop wrote:Why does a fundamentally flawed idea belong in the Workshop? I've already addressed the major issues in the concept, and pointed out the mountain of unfounded assumptions that this idea is based on.


Because I felt like it.


And this is a reason? In any case, I don't see what more can be discussed on the topic until the OP takes some responsibility for his request and addresses the issues brought up.

Also,
Puck wrote:feel free to discuss wormhole mechanics as well, if you feel they might need to be changed.


In which case a new thread, which isn't so explicitly pointed toward a fundamentally flawed idea, would be more apt. But in any case, I'll play along. It's my personal opinion that reinstating the damage will kill any usefulness that the wormholes have; preventing people from building on or near a wormhole has no support and is an entirely unnecessary and detrimental change; anything that affects players - such as removing scanners or jumpgates or protection for bases built on or near a wormhole - is detrimental; the only change that I consider valid, at least for the moment, is changing when and where wormholes spawn, as well as increasing the number of wormholes. I've always been fond of the idea of having two wormholes per galaxy band. It makes it much harder to defend if there are two wormhole entry points to the same galaxy band, which means that it's easier to launch a blob crash. Likewise, causing the wormholes to move more often reduces the benefit of building a base on or near a wormhole, which takes care of that issue in a non-detrimental way.

"That's what I do. I drink and I know things."
User avatar
Awol
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2178
Joined: Thu 17 May, 2007 04:14
Reputation: 61
Guild: FAIL

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Awol » Sat 19 Mar, 2011 04:58

Khamul Nazgul wrote:IF you all are all caught up on "players should be-able to build anywhere they want" statement.

Why build there when a Wormhole popped up in the first place?
The ONLY reason is for permanent eyes of which is being abused with Multi accounts.

Whether you like it or not, I'm right.

There's plenty of planets/moons to be built on outside of a Wormhole Region, you can always wait till after the Wormhole moves if you want a certain astro in said region THAT BAD.


This Idea encourages all around fairness, but hey I guess you "no" players don't want any competition right.

It brings back the tactical side to the Wormhole Idea which was the whole point of it, many guilds don't even use the wormholes during wars because many guilds have permanent eyes on the wormholes as they built bases on the wormholes as they popped up for personal guild advantage.

If any guild launched through a wormhole.
They'd just get caught out as soon as they launch through the wormhole.


If this idea does not get put forward, I can tell you now.

HONESTLY.

It WILL encourage more guilds to make multi accounts of there own so they can have permanent eyes.

They have to keep up with the cheaters some how right? :)

Oh and Ribb, saying I am getting friends here?
Fish Heads for example is on the opposite block on my server, meaning my enemy.

Both blocks agree this is the best to better further the server.


Some people build bases purely for tactical purposes, they aren't active enough to support the guild by traditional means anymore so they disband the majority of their bases and provide for the guild with tactical base placement. These people generally play for the social aspect of the game and dont mind sacrificing account growth. Some people play only to build Econ or Tech. I know a fella who only builds bases in a certain galaxy set in order to get under the skin of the natives. Is there potential for abuse by "multis"? Yes, but that applies to nearly every aspect of the game. It's already against the rules to multi and the rule is strictly enforced. Lets focus on catching the cheaters rather than changing the game for everyone in order to prevent abuse by a few.

Image
User avatar
Hellion
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5462
Joined: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 15:11
Reputation: 63

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Hellion » Sat 19 Mar, 2011 12:58

Ribbentrop wrote:Why does a fundamentally flawed idea belong in the Workshop? I've already addressed the major issues in the concept, and pointed out the mountain of unfounded assumptions that this idea is based on.


Guild bank made it here also.

@OP

No the idea limits quite a bit of options. I think WH needs a number of changes however the ones you suggested are not really the way to go on that.

Image
User avatar
Bones09
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu 06 Aug, 2009 18:47
Reputation: 59

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Bones09 » Thu 24 Mar, 2011 11:25

Hellion wrote:No the idea limits quite a bit of options. I think WH needs a number of changes however the ones you suggested are not really the way to go on that.


I'd like to continue the discussion on how WHs can be changed so its fair for servers.

As we all know and I know we can agree on, servers are overpowered and abused by top level guilds to control the game in their respective server.

Say there is a crash happening in the 30s cluster between X guild and Y guild. The Rank 1 and 2 guilds allied with each other, Guild A and B respectively hear about it.

They move to their WHs and wait for the crash to happen. Once they know when Guild X is launching on Guild Y, they send out their own launch orders to go through the WH and head to a secret JG in the cluster.

Guild X calls everyone to stay up for a late night and Guild Y does the same. They enjoy themselves and mutual respect is given during the crash. Guild Y wins and hordes a massive derb pile.

Unbeknownst to them Guild A and B are merely 12-36 hours out depending on JG level and distance between galaxies. Guild A and B ninja the derb pile and ruin the game for tons of players.

And they continue to do this leaving the server devoid of any real crashes other than huge blob wars.


This is a very real example of the overpowered WHs.

I'm not saying they are bad, but they are really overpowered especially since the main benefactors are the most overpowered guilds on the server.

I propose some solutions to discuss:
- Limit amount of guild fleet allowed to pass through the WH each day (Not very effective for newer servers)
- Enforce a smaller amount of damage (like 0.5-1%) on the fleets moving through WH (I mean seriously 1% is nothing, its like a days worth of production for using such an overpowered tool)
- Extend the travel time to 18-24 hours (This is really fast for cross cluster travel, keep in mind its 2 way)
- Randomize travel time (6-14 hours) to allow guilds to organize picking off fleets traveling through WH and add to their threat, but leaving them as a great tool

Original creator of the C&S threads

In-Game Name: [Classified]
User avatar
Hellion
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5462
Joined: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 15:11
Reputation: 63

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Hellion » Thu 24 Mar, 2011 16:43

Bones09 wrote:I propose some solutions to discuss:
- Limit amount of guild fleet allowed to pass through the WH each day (Not very effective for newer servers)
- Enforce a smaller amount of damage (like 0.5-1%) on the fleets moving through WH (I mean seriously 1% is nothing, its like a days worth of production for using such an overpowered tool)
- Extend the travel time to 18-24 hours (This is really fast for cross cluster travel, keep in mind its 2 way)
- Randomize travel time (6-14 hours) to allow guilds to organize picking off fleets traveling through WH and add to their threat, but leaving them as a great tool


1. Limiting the amount of fleet would ultimately stop use from guilds as a whole. If they cant launch their guild through together then it would pretty much reduce anyones chance of wanting to go through. I think ultimately this is a bad way to go also.

2. Depends on the fleets your talking about. Some as high as 200 mil nearly (might be off here) 1 jump @ 1% = 2 mil fleet which on average is 5 days prod for a decent account.

3. Wouldnt totally mind this.

4. This would make it so that WHs aren't used directly for crashes and would screw up tons of launch times. Though many would cite randomization doesn't belong in AE. I think it wouldn't be entirely a bad way to go but it also puts more power into the defenders hand @ WH's which is also another matter of preference.



One of the counter ideas I had on another thread or maybe this one (cant remember) is that perhaps the happy medium and do .5-2% damage @ 12hrs travel and no damage at 18-24 hrs travel. It allows options and imo increases the use of more strategy. If someone jumped @ 24 hrs you could effectively take them at both sides. Does it make it a better idea to take the damage for the speed or should one take the slower route without damage? Each situation would dictate something different.

Image
User avatar
Bones09
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu 06 Aug, 2009 18:47
Reputation: 59

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Bones09 » Thu 24 Mar, 2011 21:12

Hellion wrote:2. Depends on the fleets your talking about. Some as high as 200 mil nearly (might be off here) 1 jump @ 1% = 2 mil fleet which on average is 5 days prod for a decent account.

3. Wouldnt totally mind this.

4. This would make it so that WHs aren't used directly for crashes and would screw up tons of launch times. Though many would cite randomization doesn't belong in AE. I think it wouldn't be entirely a bad way to go but it also puts more power into the defenders hand @ WH's which is also another matter of preference.

5. One of the counter ideas I had on another thread or maybe this one (cant remember) is that perhaps the happy medium and do .5-2% damage @ 12hrs travel and no damage at 18-24 hrs travel. It allows options and imo increases the use of more strategy. If someone jumped @ 24 hrs you could effectively take them at both sides. Does it make it a better idea to take the damage for the speed or should one take the slower route without damage? Each situation would dictate something different.


2. There aren't very many large fleets like that out there. And to them, a half week's production is nothing if they can use the WH to make a ton of profit. And that is the higher loss range, I mean its potentially possible they would only be losing 200K as well.

3. This is agreed upon, but idea 5 uses it better imo

4. Well in most cases it is the defender with the least advantage compared to their overpowered opponents. So focusing on benefiting the defender evens the field. But I'm not too happy with this solution anyway.

5. This solution is really interesting. Most guilds will probably use the 24 hour option instead of the 12 hour option though, so there may not be a point to the damage option.

Original creator of the C&S threads

In-Game Name: [Classified]
User avatar
Hellion
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5462
Joined: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 15:11
Reputation: 63

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Hellion » Fri 25 Mar, 2011 00:58

Bones09 wrote:
Hellion wrote:2. Depends on the fleets your talking about. Some as high as 200 mil nearly (might be off here) 1 jump @ 1% = 2 mil fleet which on average is 5 days prod for a decent account.

3. Wouldnt totally mind this.

4. This would make it so that WHs aren't used directly for crashes and would screw up tons of launch times. Though many would cite randomization doesn't belong in AE. I think it wouldn't be entirely a bad way to go but it also puts more power into the defenders hand @ WH's which is also another matter of preference.

5. One of the counter ideas I had on another thread or maybe this one (cant remember) is that perhaps the happy medium and do .5-2% damage @ 12hrs travel and no damage at 18-24 hrs travel. It allows options and imo increases the use of more strategy. If someone jumped @ 24 hrs you could effectively take them at both sides. Does it make it a better idea to take the damage for the speed or should one take the slower route without damage? Each situation would dictate something different.


2. There aren't very many large fleets like that out there. And to them, a half week's production is nothing if they can use the WH to make a ton of profit. And that is the higher loss range, I mean its potentially possible they would only be losing 200K as well.

3. This is agreed upon, but idea 5 uses it better imo

4. Well in most cases it is the defender with the least advantage compared to their overpowered opponents. So focusing on benefiting the defender evens the field. But I'm not too happy with this solution anyway.

5. This solution is really interesting. Most guilds will probably use the 24 hour option instead of the 12 hour option though, so there may not be a point to the damage option.


2. As time progresses that number will increase quite rapidly. Just like at one in this game many didnt think people would build enough fighters to straight up rape a base. These days its fairly common...

5. Most will thats pretty much correct but it opens the option for those that still need the extra bit of speed. If you need to be at a location fairly quickly and the promise of derbs is fairly high the 12 hr may be a better option. This allows the WH to simply be more versatile while not making it completely useless.

Image
User avatar
Sandcastle Smasher
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5237
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2009 00:23
Reputation: 179
Guild: L: [USSV]
O: [DNA]
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Sandcastle Smasher » Fri 25 Mar, 2011 16:01

Bones09 wrote:- Randomize travel time (6-14 hours) to allow guilds to organize picking off fleets traveling through WH and add to their threat, but leaving them as a great tool


Actually, that is the best change to whs i have ever read. Maybe changing to to a smaller time distance. But it stops WHs being used as a purely offensive tool (one they are very good at) yet keeps their general use viable (either for individuals or entire guilds). It makes them what they really should be. The best tool for traveling from one galaxy set to another, and yet makes it so guilds cant just sit on them waiting for people to try and move through them (as you cant do a sync'd launch).
Not to shabby an idea mate ^^ (unless you stole it then you thief :bleh: )

Sammael wrote:I wish I were allowed to just straight up ban people for no reason
Typhus wrote:So braver is moe?
BaNeth wrote:You silly vacation seldon ;)
TheVoice wrote:In Communist Lyra, Seldon blame you
Miscellanea
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 507
Joined: Sun 08 Oct, 2006 23:43
Reputation: 13

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Miscellanea » Fri 25 Mar, 2011 16:13

I think the reason Khamul made this was because in alpha players such as "Temporal" and "Jump Gates" build bases on these wormholes to then contruct jump gates for faster travel. These accounts have nothing but bases on wormholes and have about 200 economy each, which is suspicious at the very least. Although this may not be the case for all servers in my opinion people are obviously creating multiple accounts to gain unfair advantage over other guilds.

Also, I believe that bringing back the random damage will kill the wormhole idea and bring us back to pre-WH (or when the wormholes had random damage, but more damage than is suggested now). (To me,) There is no reason to go through a wormhole and take damage rather than taking a major jump gate.

User avatar
sandalphon
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 4643
Joined: Wed 25 Jul, 2007 18:59
Reputation: 54
Guild: Whatever Guild I am.
Galaxy: Alpha
Location: on the top of a T-REX
Contact:

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby sandalphon » Sun 27 Mar, 2011 02:44

I have been thinking if I should post this or not since I already can immagine the result...

I suggest WH are removed from game. I am not joking.


Kill me now

Image

Gray wrote:Getting Sandy to build fleet is harder than getting Panda's to reproduce in captivity. :)
User avatar
Nagel
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 9018
Joined: Sat 12 Jan, 2008 22:46
Reputation: 353
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Nagel » Sun 27 Mar, 2011 09:44

I think for all their 'flaws' the bring more positives then negatives, removing them would be going backwards. Saying that I am one of the few who seem to believe they are perfectly fine where they are.

I think just because some Leaders are too awful to plan around them, does not mean they are an awful feature.

SHLD GM

Qµeen Bruskie wrote:I was hoping you'd have enough sense to not be a retard. Too much credit I suppose.
User avatar
Hellion
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5462
Joined: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 15:11
Reputation: 63

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Hellion » Sun 27 Mar, 2011 18:11

sandalphon wrote:I have been thinking if I should post this or not since I already can immagine the result...

I suggest WH are removed from game. I am not joking.


Kill me now


Though I dont really disagree with you it seems that the servers dropped a bit faster when WH's were introduced. As mentioned a number of times before it made things happen at a much faster speed which in turn gave the main block a very good means of handling the entire server. At the very least though the idea needs to be modified some to at least reduce the amount of power given to the main block. I think in many ways it also had positive things but also brought some very negative ones.

Image
User avatar
Awol
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2178
Joined: Thu 17 May, 2007 04:14
Reputation: 61
Guild: FAIL

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Awol » Mon 28 Mar, 2011 00:21

Hellion wrote:
sandalphon wrote:I have been thinking if I should post this or not since I already can immagine the result...

I suggest WH are removed from game. I am not joking.


Kill me now


Though I dont really disagree with you it seems that the servers dropped a bit faster when WH's were introduced. As mentioned a number of times before it made things happen at a much faster speed which in turn gave the main block a very good means of handling the entire server. At the very least though the idea needs to be modified some to at least reduce the amount of power given to the main block. I think in many ways it also had positive things but also brought some very negative ones.


WHs dont only empower "the main block" in fact on my server they were used to gather forces from multiple guilds across multiple clusters to effectively destroy the main block. An option that was not available to us until the introduction of the WH system.

Image
User avatar
Hellion
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 5462
Joined: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 15:11
Reputation: 63

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Hellion » Mon 28 Mar, 2011 05:50

Awol wrote:
Hellion wrote:
sandalphon wrote:I have been thinking if I should post this or not since I already can immagine the result...

I suggest WH are removed from game. I am not joking.


Kill me now


Though I dont really disagree with you it seems that the servers dropped a bit faster when WH's were introduced. As mentioned a number of times before it made things happen at a much faster speed which in turn gave the main block a very good means of handling the entire server. At the very least though the idea needs to be modified some to at least reduce the amount of power given to the main block. I think in many ways it also had positive things but also brought some very negative ones.


WHs dont only empower "the main block" in fact on my server they were used to gather forces from multiple guilds across multiple clusters to effectively destroy the main block. An option that was not available to us until the introduction of the WH system.


Problem though is how many times was it utilized to take down the main block as compared to the main block using it to make themselves stronger? It benefits the main block much more then it hurts them.

Image
User avatar
Ferdoc
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 13933
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 19:05
Reputation: 114
Guild: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!
Location: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!

Re: Wormhole Abuse

Postby Ferdoc » Mon 28 Mar, 2011 17:32

Correlation vs causation on WHs being the direct cause of server population dropping. No one can prove that WHs caused it, so all you can say is that we observed a correlation between WHs being introduced and server population decreasing.

I still believe this idea is based upon a false premise. It seeks to prevent multis from acting without proving those who do so are multis; and never seeks to find out who the multis are. With this concept as it is innocent players are being punished. It also sets a miserable precedent on action. Players suspect others are cheating? Lets not ban the multies. Nope, lets remove access from that particular function. Believe guild XYZ is using share scanners? Under the logic in this thread we'll ban scanners. Believe people are using multies to get bases across a galaxy for more eyes? Ban players from choosing where they will build.

The foundation of this idea, the logic, is not faulty. Its corrupt. When you apply the same logic to any other aspect of AE you see how much it lacks in ability to actually do what it promises. Assume guilt when people do action Y, block action Y.

Gotta love those death threats
Soubanth wrote:you're going to help him even if it kill you.

Return to “FR Workshop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests