These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

WH jump bridges
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2011-11-21 17:40:26 UTC
I propose we allow the construction of jump bridges to link two WH systems together. (but not WH space and normal space)

They would still have range restrictions, so it wouldn't be as if you could link any two WHs, but some would be linkable (and perhaps in time, maps of WH space could be constructed by players).
This could perhaps lead to the formation of large "empires" in WH space, with multiple systems connected via jump bridges.

Right now you can't count on a connection between any two systems, the best you can do is have two systems with reliable connections to high sec.

This could perhaps lead to constellation control and sovereignty within WH space - perhaps we have two types of WH space, those within a cluster that can be connected via jump bridges, and others that are farther flung out and cant have any jump bridge connections/sovereignty.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#2 - 2011-11-21 17:47:36 UTC
I propose people that come up with terrible ideas like this should be biomassed.

What ya think?
Mirima Thurander
#3 - 2011-11-21 18:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirima Thurander
Emperor Salazar wrote:
I propose people that come up with terrible ideas like this should be biomassed.

What ya think?




I propose people that have any combination of Dreddit, Test Alliance Please Ignore or Goon under the avatar be flogged to death with this

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5218/5387090570_43b021c9ce.jpg

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#4 - 2011-11-21 19:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
This is probably the single least intelligent and most poorly thought out idea regarding wormholes yet to curse my eyes with the displeasure of reading. You allow basically static connections between wormholes and you're opening up J-space to be monopolized by mega-alliances, resulting in nothing better than a glorified empire-null space. This would completely break wormholes. You'd have the ganks of massive fleets, the inability for small corps to find a hole of their own to try and make it in... by the gods, pod yourself and hurl the remaining goo into the nearest black hole, then hide your head in shame for concocting such an ill-thought attempt at something resembling an idea. You should be embarassed.

Seriously... I just read it again and nearly threw up.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#5 - 2011-11-21 19:44:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Emperor Salazar
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Emperor Salazar wrote:
I propose people that come up with terrible ideas like this should be biomassed.

What ya think?




I propose people that have any combination of Dreddit, Test Alliance Please Ignore or Goon under the avatar be flogged to death with this

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5218/5387090570_43b021c9ce.jpg


Well thats rather rude.

I'm sorry did we gank your ice miner/take your space/hurt your butt in some way?

If so, I actually handle all circumstances of grievances among our two alliances. Simply deposit 50 million isk in my account and I will open a file for you and begin the necessary steps of investigation and compensation on your behalf.

Thanks and have a pleasant day.
Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#6 - 2011-11-21 19:55:19 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
I propose we allow the construction of jump bridges to link two WH systems together. (but not WH space and normal space)

They would still have range restrictions, so it wouldn't be as if you could link any two WHs, but some would be linkable (and perhaps in time, maps of WH space could be constructed by players).
This could perhaps lead to the formation of large "empires" in WH space, with multiple systems connected via jump bridges.

Right now you can't count on a connection between any two systems, the best you can do is have two systems with reliable connections to high sec.

This could perhaps lead to constellation control and sovereignty within WH space - perhaps we have two types of WH space, those within a cluster that can be connected via jump bridges, and others that are farther flung out and cant have any jump bridge connections/sovereignty.


wow you occupy 2 wormholes? 1 c4 with cap ships in reserve not enough?
Katalci
Kismesis
#7 - 2011-11-21 23:12:38 UTC
How about we just straight make all of WH space into nullsec, with stargates and everything but sleeper anomalies?

The entire point of WH space is its easy, predictable ISK making with a large, safe empire isn't it? You should be able to drop 450 drakes on 20 man fleet that attacks your POS just like the rest of EVE -- why should wormhole dwellers get such a special entitement?! It's unfair.

And add instant local, too. It's so strenuous to pay attention to my directional scanner. I want instant, free intel for no effort so I can warp back to my POS whenever a single neutral enters the system.
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2011-11-21 23:22:48 UTC
Quote:
perhaps we have two types of WH space, those within a cluster that can be connected via jump bridges, and others that are farther flung out and cant have any jump bridge connections/sovereignty.


I appreciate what the lack of static connections between systems does for wormhole space.

However, I think it would also be interesting if we had territory where static connections could exist, but they would not be mapped, and they would not be the only connections - the pseudo random WH connections we already get would still exist.

I also think it would be interesting if you would sometimes come across systems that are more developed than a couple POS's.

I also like the idea of trying to organize an empire in this unmapped space (as a rule, none of the connectable WH systems will have high sec connecting WH spawns) where attacks may come in any system of your empire, with no way to protect large areas of space via gate camps of the perimeter systems.

I don't see why the current system, and my idea, must be mutually exclusive.
We can have both.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#9 - 2011-11-22 04:21:09 UTC
You want to build an empire and have the benefits of sov?

You know where to go to get it.

This idea is nothing new, and its just as terrible as the last time it was proposed.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2011-11-22 05:31:13 UTC
How about this.

Allow the jump gates, but make them specific to the corp, and only the corp can use them.

However, the gates will be destroyable by pretty much anyone, so they're essentially POS's.

They require fuel to run, on both sides.

Corps are limited to 1 connection, in other words, 2 gates, but connected to each other.

Alliance members are not allowed to use your corps jump gate.

So essentially, each corp of an alliance will have easy access to 2 wh systems.

This means alliances would seriously have to strategize and overlap each corps systems with other corp systems in order to have more protection and supply lines, so it would look like this.

Alliance with 5 corps through 5 systems

system 1 corp 1 and 5
system 2 corp 1 and 2
system 3 corp 2 and 3
system 4 corp 3 and 4
system 5 corp 4 and 5
Then corp 5 is again tied to system 1 with corp 1

If you didn't plan out yout gates in this manner, then you wouldn't have a consistant supply chain.

Again though, the gates can be destroyed the same as POS's, which can be a strategic advantage for the attacker, and a strategic advantage for the defender if they keep it secure.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#11 - 2011-11-22 14:14:45 UTC
No Joe, that's absolutely horrible of a suggestion. The current system is working great as it is... wormholes are recognized by many as what null sec should have been had it been done right the first time. There's absolutely no need to denigrate wormholes into a cheapened version of empire null sec when it's empire null sec that needs to be enhanced, not the true null sec of wormholes.

There are greater challenges associated with wormhole living, especially in an alliance style setting. Not having direct, predictable links between allied systems adds a challenge many alliances can't or won't attempt... for them there's empire. When a call to arms requires scanning a path to empire for everyone involved, forming up at a specific location then attempting to wrestle control of the current hole into the target system from the invaders/residents so you can move your fleet in.. man, it's a beautiful thing compared to the "blob from one gate to the next to get where you're going" thing.

Any form of static connections between holes would completely ruin wormhole life. It would become far too easy for a mega-alliance to establish domination simply because they could quickly send massive fleets to any of their holes without any planning while an attacking force would not only have to wrestle for hole-control with a now insanely superior force but they'd also be subject to mass limiitations the defenders wouldn't.

Let this incredibly bad and poorly thought out concept die and rot in the compost pile where it belongs.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-11-22 14:56:21 UTC
I'll just add my **** no to Ingvar's already much more elegantly worded version.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.