These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Fortune favors the bold - the "Violent" connection

Author
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#1 - 2013-07-08 11:31:33 UTC
Well, since the Wormholes subforum seems to have turned into its own form of Features and Ideas, here's mine:

A new type of random/roaming/periodic wormhole connection, perhaps only connecting C6s to other C6s. It would list its type as a "violent" wormhole connection, similar to what the Sansha used to spawn. Upon creation in the database, it would have a secret random total allowable mass and lifespan--perhaps anywhere between 500,000 tons and 10 mil tons, and 2.4 hours to 24 hours.

However (and this is the important part), it would list no special information or change its animation at the destabilization or crit stage of either mass or time. In other words, that violent wormhole you're looking at may be able to take a fleet of capitals for the entire rest of the evening...or it might just close behind your Guardian.

These are not intended to replace static connections, as nobody wants to risk their dreadnoughts chain collapsing to look for pews or pve. But for those who want a little extra excitement in their life and find a violent wormhole connecting to SYJ's home system...why not?

You can either push as much of your fleet through it as you can and go for broke, or you can go back to hiding in your POS.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Ridicule?

http://www.wormholes.info

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-07-08 11:41:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Would you ever jump a fleet through such a hole? and how many times do you think it would take half your fleet getting stuck in a random wormhole before your members say "**** that, i'm not jumping through violent holes anymore."?
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#3 - 2013-07-08 12:04:44 UTC
So the new opposite to risk-averse is no more risk-taking, but stupid...
Nix Anteris
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#4 - 2013-07-08 12:07:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Nix Anteris
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Well, since the Wormholes subforum seems to have turned into its own form of Features and Ideas, here's mine:

So instead of helping to rectify the problem, you contribute to it. Nice work Mr. CSM candidate.

Nathan Jameson wrote:
But for those who want a little extra excitement in their life and find a violent wormhole connecting to SYJ's home system...why not?

Doesn't sound exciting to me.

More random wormholes. and wormholes with greater randomness of their attributes have both been suggested before. What is this specific iteration attempting to fix (?). What is the point of this idea? What problem is it designed to overcome?

C6s certainly don't need more interconnections. They're easy enough to find as it is.
Jay Joringer
13.
#5 - 2013-07-08 12:10:09 UTC
I had a similar idea actually, but I think it's something that may look good on paper but will actually be counter productive in practice. More of a mechanic that make the wormhole connections similarly 'violent', but having a random chance to become so unstable that it prohibits jumps for a short time. How this would work is that each ship jumping through within a few minutes has a cumulative effect on this mechanic triggering, dependent on the ships mass.

This may stop fleets escaping engagements on connections and also have a chance of reducing the number of reinforcements jumping through. The problem I see with it is that I think overall there will be less people willing to play 'wormhole roulette', so less pew.

Of course, there a couple of variations that could be workable like applying damage to passing ships with the more that pass through in a given time, or even having variable polarizing effects with chances to buff/debuff ships passing through.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-07-08 12:11:02 UTC
Yay,

A wormhole that nobody will use.
Nix Anteris
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#7 - 2013-07-08 12:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nix Anteris
Jay Joringer wrote:
Of course, there a couple of variations that could be workable like applying damage to passing ships with the more that pass through in a given time, or even having variable polarizing effects with chances to buff/debuff ships passing through.

Now that's an interesting idea. A violent wormhole that has a chance to ravage your shields/armor/capacitor as you pass through it.. fleeing in structure could be the end of you.
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#8 - 2013-07-08 12:22:03 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Would you ever jump a fleet through such a hole? and how many times do you think it would take half your fleet getting stuck in a random wormhole before your members say "**** that, i'm not jumping through violent holes anymore."?


I would certainly hope these people aren't the same people that are complaining that C6 space is boring and lacks incentives for PVP. One of the (many) problems they say this is that wormhole connections are too well-understood nowadays, with exact mass allowances, home field advantage, ease of rolling by defenders, etc.

As for the wormhole subforum now housing wormhole-related ideas, I personally see it as progress. I certainly don't go looking through the actual Ideas subforum for ideas for wormholes.

http://www.wormholes.info

Winthorp
#9 - 2013-07-08 12:22:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
A violent connection would work better if it only activated in systems if there was online pilots on both sides of the possible connections.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-07-08 12:39:20 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:

I would certainly hope these people aren't the same people that are complaining that C6 space is boring and lacks incentives for PVP. One of the (many) problems they say this is that wormhole connections are too well-understood nowadays, with exact mass allowances, home field advantage, ease of rolling by defenders, etc.


Hey, i do feel wormholes need something to spice them up and attract new people but i don't think your suggestion would do that. Just giving feedback like you asked, Nathan.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-07-08 12:57:11 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Would you ever jump a fleet through such a hole? and how many times do you think it would take half your fleet getting stuck in a random wormhole before your members say "**** that, i'm not jumping through violent holes anymore."?


I would certainly hope these people aren't the same people that are complaining that C6 space is boring and lacks incentives for PVP. One of the (many) problems they say this is that wormhole connections are too well-understood nowadays, with exact mass allowances, home field advantage, ease of rolling by defenders, etc.

As for the wormhole subforum now housing wormhole-related ideas, I personally see it as progress. I certainly don't go looking through the actual Ideas subforum for ideas for wormholes.



Having a WH that is a complete unknown isn't a PVP incentive. It's just annoying.

Jumping your roaming gang through only to have half stuck on one side is a nice way to kill a roam and turn it into a "ok now let's find a F**King way back home"
Winthorp
#12 - 2013-07-08 12:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
.
Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#13 - 2013-07-08 13:05:41 UTC
I love the fact that after one thread every bad idea gets contribued to c6 WH'ers.

Stop crying Roll

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#14 - 2013-07-08 13:26:27 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Hey, i do feel wormholes need something to spice them up and attract new people but i don't think your suggestion would do that. Just giving feedback like you asked, Nathan.


No problem!

http://www.wormholes.info

Evangelina Nolen
Sama Guild
#15 - 2013-07-08 13:34:30 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
A violent connection would work better if it only activated in systems if there was online pilots on both sides of the possible connections.


Forget the special stats. Just a roaming connection that rolls into Active systems.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-07-08 14:08:31 UTC
Evangelina Nolen wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
A violent connection would work better if it only activated in systems if there was online pilots on both sides of the possible connections.


Forget the special stats. Just a roaming connection that rolls into Active systems.


Now see that would work.

Random WH. Only spawns into systems that have had activity within the last 30min.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2013-07-08 14:10:12 UTC
^ Yeah i like that idea as long as it's not predictable e.g. do X 10 times and roaming WH spawns.
Xtrah
Overload This
#18 - 2013-07-09 19:42:08 UTC
Sleeper kills in a WH increases chance of connecting to it!
GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#19 - 2013-07-11 08:10:55 UTC
terrible idea is terrible.

otherwise seems legit way to get hostiles into a system, do there sites when they are not logged in and try to get more re-enforcements in.

need to get home? just do your sites.

also seems like nz/au tz people would be the only ones able to make any isk doing sites..
Job Valador
Professional Amateurs
#20 - 2013-07-11 11:34:39 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Evangelina Nolen wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
A violent connection would work better if it only activated in systems if there was online pilots on both sides of the possible connections.


Forget the special stats. Just a roaming connection that rolls into Active systems.


Now see that would work.

Random WH. Only spawns into systems that have had activity within the last 30min.


I can get behind this

"The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement."

12Next page