These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

C5, C6 Mass discussion in regards to capitals.

First post
Author
Fiendish Dr Wu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2016-04-12 12:16:07 UTC
Think this is a good oportunity to alter the meta and increase the activity of C6 systems. There's not much meaningful distinction between a C5 corp and a C6 corp at the moment.

Since most PvP centric corps live in a C5 and PvP out of their C5-C5 static it seems easiest to balance mass on C5-C5 holes around PvP and either keep mass the same or allow 1 more cap. Personally I don't like the idea of increasing mass as it'll just end up with smaller corps shying away from confrontation for fear of cap blobs. I'm sure for those few corps who are able to field more caps it would allow for some epic fights, but for the rest of us we don't want to turn WH combat into null-esque slugfests.

C5-C6 holes on the other hand could be increased in mass and then maybe we'd see them getting some more use, even if its just a niche. Maybe allow 3 caps in and back out again to fully escalate sites, since I doubt we'll be able to rely on running home sites quite so much after the changes.

Anyway, just my .2 isk. Theres potential for some good changes here - i'd love to see things get shaken up. I just don't want to see people getting even less reason to take a fight.

Oh and whilst we're at it; less frig holes please.
Rob Kashuken
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2016-04-13 07:13:07 UTC
I would advocate keeping WH Mass limits the same, however I would also like to see more capital movement around - why not consider another option, such as introduce a rig, like a capital (or possibly large) rig that specifically reduces mass, at the expense of a related statistic - an inverse Higgs Rig of some type.

This could allow for additional mobility of caps for seeding, or just getting capitals into a home hole, whilst not adjusting WH mass caps, which would affect more ship movements rather than just capitals.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#63 - 2016-04-13 14:01:46 UTC
I'm more in favor of the opposite; allow more subcaps through holes but not necessarily more caps.

From my experience, people who would like to do pve in their corp's static often dont do it because they would want to bring battleships and they damage the hole too quickly. So corpmates not interested in doing sites will be pissed off if bearing ships kill their good pvp connection or chain to hisec.

Would be nice if more battleships could be used in wspace, either by increasing hole mass or reducing battleship mass.

About more capitals I'm rather indifferent... it can increase or stay how it is, dont really care.

.

Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#64 - 2016-04-14 05:10:12 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
I'm more in favor of the opposite; allow more subcaps through holes but not necessarily more caps.
...
Would be nice if more battleships could be used in wspace, either by increasing hole mass or reducing battleship mass..

^very good suggestion.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Eikin Skjald
Ars Venandi
#65 - 2016-04-14 07:57:37 UTC
Rob Kashuken wrote:
I would advocate keeping WH Mass limits the same, however I would also like to see more capital movement around - why not consider another option, such as introduce a rig, like a capital (or possibly large) rig that specifically reduces mass, at the expense of a related statistic - an inverse Higgs Rig of some type.

This could allow for additional mobility of caps for seeding, or just getting capitals into a home hole, whilst not adjusting WH mass caps, which would affect more ship movements rather than just capitals.



Maybe an inverse Higgs Rig should not reduce the mass, but could be an option to move into a C4 without an option to remove it in C4 Space.
Thea Jones
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2016-04-18 04:12:19 UTC
There are a few issues regarding wormhole mass, but in reality the issue is the design state of C6 space, Shattered Wormholes, and C5 connections.

There are a few ways to address this.

Ultimately.. we should leave the current wormhole masses alone regarding c5 connections.

We could potentially increase the capital mass wormhole limits on non c5 and c6 wormholes by increasing by a factor of 4 the amount of capitals that can go through shattered space.

So you find a shattered hole, and you are in a c5 or c6, you can move 4x the amount of capitals you normally would be able to. So this means it grows from 3 capitals, to 12.

This would be for shattered space only. The idea is that if people want to really REALLY risk capital gameplay in wspace, they'll have to commit those caps in a more rogue type space. Will people jump at this? No they'll be their generally risk adverse selves and camp the holes waiting for someone to make the first move.

Fine.

The reasoning for the shattered space connection is so that groups won't be worried about mass rage rolling just to have a group steamroll a slew of capitals into their home system.

It is a imperfect solution for a imperfect problem, but I do believe that this change could permit a better testbed for greater capital gameplay as well as greater roaming gameplay in wspace.
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#67 - 2016-04-21 11:49:41 UTC
^ Sounds interesting but it would be massively overpowered. You could too easily use it as a capital staging point for evictions.
Thea Jones
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2016-04-21 13:58:57 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
^ Sounds interesting but it would be massively overpowered. You could too easily use it as a capital staging point for evictions.


A staging point, absolutely... a staging point with no citadel, docking options, safety protocol, pos shield, etc. You could potentially use scouts then log on the capitals, jump .. oh 12 into a c5 or c6 and begin a eviction. But you are also dealing with the logistical pain of doing this, trying to use jetcans to swap gear, get more ammo, orca's and other caps for equipment storage, counter drops once people know which hole you are in... but even with doing this type of staging, you run into a issue.

Finding one of these fking things to stage in. Its theoretically easier to roll a c6 vs trying to keep one of these places stocked with ships to do evictions. Is it possible. Yea, and I would love to see it to be honest.

Were talking about a threat to c5 and c6 space in this case, but we are also talking about a change to a piece of wspace which...for the most part isn't widely used. Modifications to wspace can happen here first to see the true effect overtime, vs just ramming new effects into old wspace and expecting people to just like it.

Yes its dangerous, it opens up more capital play, its harder to mess with mass, it permits a bit of extra movement in this area of space.

I believe this is an option, but would need modification before implementing something like this, specifically with integrating c6 space in someway shape or form (because yea c6 is deads).
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#69 - 2016-04-21 15:39:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
You could simple use holder charters and log off multiple capitals in the shattered system, then as soon as your scout finds a good target and plots you a chain to bring your subcaps in... Boom, instant siege force!

As i said it's an interesting idea and needs work but it's not really what this thread is about.
Thea Jones
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2016-04-21 16:37:36 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
You could simple use holder charters and log off multiple capitals in the shattered system, then as soon as your scout finds a good target and plots you a chain to bring your subcaps in... Boom, instant siege force!

As i said it's an interesting idea and needs work but it's not really what this thread is about.


Its done now just in different ways. Rolling ships, logoff traps, seeding, etc. difference here is that you are relying on a shattered connection that is unstable to connect you to a viable force to do this work.

It is really really REALLY random.

With that said though, a framework for this type of expanded gameplay should start being designed, and ultimately the only real avenue to do this type of increased mass wormholes without breaking wspace itself, would be in the shattered systems. That would be a better test point vs just changing c5 and c6 by buffing/nerfing statics or roaming.
Bed Bugg
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2016-04-25 15:41:17 UTC
Only way to really solve this, is to get rid of the elephant in the room.

Get rid of all capitals in WH period. (except Orcas)
Reimburse all true capitals or move them to LS.
Cannot anchor XL build arrays.
You want capital fights...go to null.
Get rid of the stupidity where you have a couple peeps in capitals farming cap escalations.
Have no wormhole mass that supports capitals entering or exiting WH space. (lower jumpable mass)

Increase hole mass variability.
Put a random cycle limit on all WHs except for frigate holes. Once you get above 30 or so ship jumps, the hole should have a chance of just snapping closed regardless of mass. We need more stranded ships and larger groups need more pucker factor when committing to jumping bigger fleets. Everything has become to mechanical and predictable.

Beachhead mechanics with medium and large citadels still allow evictions and allow new meta of perma camping holes.
100% Loot pinata citadels will still make evictions profitable.

Too much emphasis is placed on eviction mechanics per se.
Not enough emphasis on eliminating completely riskless offensive actions by big groups.

Give Large citadels their own class of superweapon specifically to alpha subcaps. No rate of fire blah blah blah... just raw alpha with a long cool-down. No more risk-less pseudo afk evictions.

As a small guy, i am ok with getting rolled and losing all my stuff, but I'll feel much better about it if I get to bloody my attackers nose in the process. no matter how big they are.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#72 - 2016-04-26 10:13:53 UTC
^ LOL. I bet you also want a pony.

.

unimatrix0030
Mass Collapse
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
#73 - 2016-04-26 10:59:35 UTC
Any news on what CCP is going to do?
Are they changing wh mass and or capital mass?

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#74 - 2016-04-26 11:07:07 UTC
I think the limit should stay the same. I don't want big BS fleets if i am chilling out in a c2, and i don't want large cap fleets either. PvP in WH is unique because of mass limits. 3 is about right 1 cap in and out. 3 caps at a time for log offs is bad enough. More simply means that only 2 perhaps 3 large corps will dominate c5/6s.

If we wanted to be in large alliance/corp I would be in nullsec.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.

unimatrix0030
Mass Collapse
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
#75 - 2016-04-26 11:54:47 UTC
2 amarr faux with each one t2 plate on it have a mass of 2.796 , a minimum variance hole is 3 bil-10% 2.7 bil .
So if they do not change the mass of wormhole's ,then tommorow less caps fit trough a wh.

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Thea Jones
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2016-04-26 12:02:53 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
2 amarr faux with each one t2 plate on it have a mass of 2.796 , a minimum variance hole is 3 bil-10% 2.7 bil .
So if they do not change the mass of wormhole's ,then tommorow less caps fit trough a wh.



Send 1 fax in first, send subcap fleet in 2nd, send 2nd fax in to close the hole.

Send dread, subcaps, fax 2 then 3.

Hell offline the plate and online it on the otherside...

There's going to be some give and take.
unimatrix0030
Mass Collapse
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
#77 - 2016-04-26 17:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: unimatrix0030
Well good to know that no one cares that we got nerfed one capital through each wh .... .
Use of battleships will go down even more yaay... .
Worse case the difference is only 450 mil mass we can get less through the wormholes thanks to this.

Quote:
Send 1 fax in first, send subcap fleet in 2nd, send 2nd fax in to close the hole.
Send dread, subcaps, fax 2 then 3.
Hell offline the plate and online it on the otherside...


Well instead of first carrier, subcap fleet, 2 capital, and 3rd capital we only get to send in your fleet you mentioned.
One capital less will not make any difference will it?
And sure offline plates when there is a hostile fleet on the other sides wich likely have a few neuts ships.... .


That is if the current mass figures on wh's don't change.

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2016-04-26 17:47:34 UTC
Then don't go.

I mean there isn't much you can do. If you want to micro it down to the mass amount where it ends up being the ideal setup... I mean there won't be fights.

Am I disagreeing with you regarding the mass amounts and how c5 and c6 will function with the extra caps. No. It will be an issue.

It should be an issue.

would I like to see more random wandering wormholes that could support more capitals. Yea I think that would be a bit interesting. People here are not ready to accept changes revolving solely around capitals. Adjustments can be made, and should be made, but it should be to the benefit of Wspace as a whole, not based solely on whether your buffer armor plate fked the hole up.

Yaay!!!!