Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Never assume that difficult logistics or expense are a deterrent to people who live in w-space.

If you're not trying to gain the favor of the WH community, then you're better off requesting a whole new type of space. There has been plenty of motion in that direction in F&I, and it won't immediately incur a storm of "ew get your blobs and blues off my lawn".

The reason people are dodging around the upsides and downsides is that to us, there is no upside. Its existence is the downside. It is introducing something that runs fundamentally counter to the way w-space works. This thread is the AFK cloaking dead horse of w-space. It has happened before and will happen again, and you're going to get cranky people saying "oh god not this again" every single time.

What I meant was that C3s and C4s don't share static destinations. They can connect, but I can't figure out any static-based reason to group the two together. Mass restrictions or similarity in resources, sure, but I'm not sure what statics to k-space and statics to w-space have to do with each other.

ihave read the entire thread ..

and i am against this idea for the follow reason.

It goes against what wh is meant to be.

here is an example

i have alts in a c4 wh with c2 static- i have good friends in a c2 if we where to bridge these two systems we would have infinite acess to a c2 with c1 and hs statics. giving us the option to

a farm the c4 sites with our caps and alowing our c2 friends to have acess to our system indefinatly.
b farm the c1 for pvp and soloable sites
c when we dont have a grav site the odds are that the c2 will have one.
d eacy axess to hs for sale runs.
e-z pure win.

not only could we do this .

Every single c4 with c2 static could potentially be linked to a c2 with hs static. and thus we have created a number of systems closly relebling Null sec with instant acess to HS

and this is just the start.

deep WH will be nearly instantly made into shallow WH with Deep WH payouts..


so in short this is a bad idea, and shuld never se the light of day.


edit: this would atract the attention of null bears and they would simply use their assets to take every single system giving hs acess to deep wh. and thus wh space would be ruled by null ... wich we all agree we do not want. right ?

So it's to facilitate bigger alliances and blobs in wormhole space, and to directly counteract a core mechanic of wormhole space (the fact that there aren't solid connections between any given system)?

Both of these things are bad.

only c1 to c1, c2 to c2, c3 to c3 etc .... would make the feature pointless . sorry you wont get many working for way of making it work simply cause stargates is a thing of K-space not WH.

i can understand your frustration and i dont know how long you have lived in wh space. i however have spen two years in wh space . and i have not Once felt the need of a prmanent bridge between two wh systems. they are islands amongst the stars. not undeveloped country needing to get civilised by stargates!

go back and re read the limitations only c1 and c2, c3-c4, and c5-c6 can be joined. so a c1 can't be linked to a c6
Also mass limitations would prevent null like blob movement.

There is already fuel consumption and mass restraints in place, announcing the presense of one of these things in k space would make it even more risky resulting in no one using them.

Posting something like that ^ with an NPC corp alt. I believe the usual response is "Post with your main or GTFO".

NO!
This kind of thing is totaly useless!
Especialy because you don't see where this would lead.
This would brake w-space because it is the only space in eve where the environment dictates the fights.
This would make you in charge of the environment.
Also think of the uses, in c1-c3 there is no need for a linkage because most have a k-space connection on had anyway by wich then can get reinforcements, swap out stuff. and whatever you want to do.
If you can't handle that w-space isn't for you.
In c5-c6 would the offensive use of the module be devestating for wormhole population.
Immaging you want to invade a target, you wait untill he logs of or has less number then he has to destroy the module.
You move in, get everything you can get in(3 caps at least and a subcapfleet), and wait untill next day.
As an attacker you timed it so that the defender aren't online( a holiday where none will be online, slow day,...) or have not engough people to take down the stabilizer . You then get in an other bunch of caps and pilots(+3 caps).
On day 3 the defenders muster up a fleet that can take it down, but by then they will need to content with a subcapfleet and 6-9 capitals... .
And all this in the span of 3 days... .
If you want that many in now, you have to be more dedicated then ever to do that... .
O and getting back after the enemy is burned down is easy also... .
So not even the bad c5/c6 will be safe(c5-static c1, c6 static c1,... ) from the never ending reinforcements.
All what will be left in c5/c6 would be large complet timezone covered alliances and a lot of void ones.... .
Small gang warfare in c5/c6 would simply end, targets would even be there... .

So what is the profit in this? None, i see no profit what so ever... .
What is the difference to rolling the hole to the next static?
Keeping the same static makes both get taped out faster, so no profit there, ... .
Invasions will be easier, so no profit there.

What you basicly are doing is keeping the static every day going to the same hole... .

No if you want to do such a thing a like it more in a lost constellation idea, where there is a whole new region added to eve wich have broken down gates you need to repair. Make this at first only reachable through c6's, but after you get in to the lost constellations you can repair the gates and go have a completly seprate null region wich isn't sov null or w-space null.
There you can do whatever to the gates... .

END