Wormholes

Let's assume these new tiny-mass wormholes are introduced. Considering the severe restrictions on mass allowance in a single jump, will there be an obvious way to distinguish these wormholes from others that aren't so restrictive?

Most identification is currently achieved, I assume, by colour. C5/C6 wormholes will allow capitals, C4/C3/C2 allow up to Orcas, C1 won't allow battleships. This is fairly standard knowledge, able to be learnt quite quickly. I also assume that the new wormholes won't differ from the current ones in the way they are coloured.

Naturally, the new wormholes will get new designations. Will these differ from standard designations in a way that is suitably obvious, perhaps by breaking the one-letter/three-number designation? Perhaps two numbers instead, or all prefixed with an 'F'? How about the K162 side? Will these wormholes get a dedicated designation for their exit side?

Will the information screen give specific information about the mass restrictions on the new wormholes? The current wormholes don't include this information, and having to open the info panel for every K162 will get frustrating.

I understand that none of this information is available strictly within the client for current wormholes, but it is easily determined, learnt, and remembered. The new tiny-mass wormholes are significantly more restrictive, to the point where not even T3 scouts can pass through. Will it be a matter of continually bouncing off wormholes, to the point where it becomes frustrating, or will we eventually be able to determine the highly limited nature of these new wormholes from information we can see?

An additional way for scouts, okay - sounds good to me. But...

Frigs, destroyers and HICs. Well, i don't know. When I take my fleet out for hunting we look for other pvp'ers, casual victims, or fancy ships while they go against sleepers. For our fleet size, frigs and destroyers wont do the trick. So we can't really hunt the fishes. I know what a destroyer fleet can put out in terms of damage, but you are not speaking small gang anymore. And considering these wormholes to be almost un-closeable - I'm not looking forward to large frig/destryoer fleets that hunt.

W-Space has been a fun environment for my fleet as we often encounter similar sized fleets and solid prices ships would make some people cry seeing them blown up. We won't enjoy a faction-warfared w-space, so please CCP, consider these connections carefully.

In this topic as well as the c4 2nd static topic: is there no way you implement mechanics for you to slowly script your way to the right balance of spawning and wormhole attributes? Basically keep what we have and have dev-tools to tweak on tranquility week by week without deploying hard-mechanics?

Adding my two cents, I don't agree with these regenerating, small-ship wormholes. They seem like a direct penalty to smaller wormhole groups in C1s through C3s. A 20-man wormhole corp living in a C2 won't be able to counter 30 interceptors from some null-sec alliance deciding to go on a roam to screw over some wormhole dwellers.

Changes like this make wormhole space more and more blobby.

How do frigate only wormholes allow you to try new fleet concepts out?

Exactly. It's not like you are unable to fly frigates now...

Oh, so now you came to the right side of the fence ; )

Here is my thinking on this. These new frigate holes are fine. I like the idea of them. However, the aspect of these new holes that gives them regenerating mass. CCP if you want to make these new holes nigh impossible to roll before they timeout just give them the total cumulative mass of a C6/C6. A corp/Alliance will not be able to roll that with frigates and dictors. Regenerating mass has no place in W-space.

Regenerating mass even for a hole that only frigs/destroyer hulls can fight through is unnecessary. And introduces a element to W-space that should not exist. Ever. Also in the future if you want to change W-space then add a new higher class of system. The elusive C7 system.

I will say I would prefer this W-hole would only go from W-space to W-space. There are always ample Null Sec holes to choose from if you want to go on a null roam. And with these new holes if there isn't a nullsec holw in your chain proper then with one of these holes a fleet can get a connection to another chain that does. And frigate roams for all.

If these holes can connect to Nullsec it really seems all null sec players want to do is blob steath bombers. The only nullbears know to do is blob. W-space is about small gang warfare. We have never wanted any mechanic that would allow us, or anyone, to be to blob anything. Blobing is not fun, there is no skill in it.

So in closing I am in favor of these new holes. I do object to regenerating mass for them. And I do not object but I would prefer they were exclusively W-space to W-space. I don't believe I have ever seen/scanned down a chain that hasn't had at least 1 null sec hole present.

Thank you CCP


Also, 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.

Too easily abusable to do that, as there would be only 1 or two corporations in nullsec that would dominate the vote.

Also too easy to seed votes to low and nullsec.

It seems fair but its abusable. And eve is very well known for abusing the rules :-)

its fascinating how much hisec NPC corps hate this new hole...

nvm