Wormholes

Stop sucking on your masters jewels.

Confirming I fly a spaceship. It can instantly jump the distance between star systems, defend itself with shields and armor at an unbelievable level, and field thermonuclear and energy based weapons. However, the same ship cannot remember a password, and my POS has to be "reminded" who I am. So, if I get a touch of lag at login, or in the heat of battle I forget, or if I want to jump from one POS to another, I bounce off my FF and sit like a nice juicy target for anyone on-grid. Lol. Awesome!

So, Two Step, what else do you talk about to CCP that doesn't make it into the minutes? Sov? Supercaps? Upgraded systems with guaranteed Sleeper spawns and other sites? Hopefully none of the above, but what else aren't you telling us?


People in deep w-space have infrequent access to k-space, and they knew that going in. They knew that to live in deep w-space, they would not be able to refuel their towers as easily. They knew they wouldn't be able to just nip out and pick up something at the market. They chose to live in deep w-space anyway.

Now some of them want to make life easier, because it's too hard. What gets me is that these people aren't a laughing stock, but are actually being taken seriously.

AHARM should be thankful that they have such a good reputation, especially right now since they're weak in active numbers, though I don't know why they keep a certain few people around. Corps have been evicted for less than this kind of garbage.

Says an alt?

Roles and hangar access granularity is something CCP ought to fix, but it's not something specific to POSes nor does it merit a POS overhaul.

I agree that the current system of having individual members needing to maintain their own POS with its own password because member X can access tab Y in every single CHA, and you can either access a SMA or you can't, is dumb beyond belief.

Bearing in mind the basic principal of w-space in that it was intended to be a nomadic existence, besides T3 refitting, access permissions not being granular enough and Skynet defence settings - what is fundamentally broken about POSes that merit this kind of overhaul? If, for example, every wormhole of every class had permanent highsec access* - would these "crushing usability flaws" be such a big deal?

I'm one of those people that can see value in being able to watch someone whilst cloaked, be able to tell when they're about to run a site, or warp off to a wormhole, or moving towards their SMA to ship up, etc. All of this would be removed by being able to dock and would cripple solo/small gang opportunistic ganking.



* I'm not suggesting this obviously - I'm pointing out the potential bias in people from C6s whining about how they have to probe chains to be able to do "station stuff"

Exotic Dancers. Stripper Poles. Alcohol.

These are the things that are actually needed.

Basically those living together within these small townships know each other irl as well. We just have that many member ^^.

But Bane would a situation where small pos were reinforced in weeks not actually result in the opposite of what you are saying?
From what I read of the minutes this was what ccp was thinking.

I don't think forcing people in smaller than current large poses is a good idea. But we do not want people to be able to stay reinforced for weeks.

Would it be possible to get a dev response to this discussion? At least that it has been read and is being considered?

Assuming a C1-C3 with static highsec you could RF someones tower and be back to finish it off easily, on your terms. Even without hole control you can get people in with no difficulties, dramas or delays.

Either the victims are going to log off their caps, SD them inside the POS shield, or lose them to the attackers.

Capitals are only a deterrent if you're prepared to use them, otherwise they're just ornaments, and in lower classes I'd wager they are more of an incitement for someone to camp out in your wormhole for a few days than anything else. The sort of corps that tend to have them in lower class wormholes are - generally speaking - ones that are ill equipped to deal with someone attacking their tower and/or have just the right amount of hubris to drop them on bait ships/POSes.

As the saying goes, bigger s**ts attract more flies.

Two step: I asked about 5 pages back whether you thought (based on your NDA knowledge) forcefields had to go and received somewhat of a non-answer. I've read the minutes, your blog, this whole thread, etc. I know what's been said on the issue, so let me clarify:

There are some ideas that could allow these new POSes to keep most people happy, but it would involve a smaller version of the FF. Based on what you know about the "technical reasons", is there room for any type of FF mechanic, or do the technical reasons require that they be abolished in any form?

Rough idea: The new POSes are going to be an actual structure instead of a space stick. I'm ok with the docking environment, but not so much actual docking. Mooring is going in the right direction, but it needs to be expanded on. The POS should have places to moor all over it, but still limited, and expandable by expanding the structure. No docking module. Instead, when you moor, you get an option to enter the station environment (Captains Quarter's) but your ship stays moored to the outside of the POS and shows you are piloting it. This allows intel preservation for both the enemy, and you, when you exit the station environment, still moored.

The catch, is that to prevent you from unmooring into a kill zone, the entire POS still needs a reduced FF (preferably asymmetric per POS setup) that is big enough to allow you to fly near the POS and exit the FF where you need to. This retains the need to bubble a whole POS, and allows pilots to avoid kill zones. The FF needs to be small enough to let CCP do whatever they need, but large enough you won't fly into a satellite dish while POS hugging and get bumped out.

So...are FF mechanics still on the table in any form, or is this idea not feasible? If you don't know, that's fine, but in that case, please consider presenting this idea to find out.

Thanks.