Wormholes

Removing forcefields is more than likely a terrible idea, as I see a lot of ways in which it'll make organising a defense/escape from a pos that is under siege near impossible

Gimping towers in lower class wormholes is just a god damn awful idea. I have yet to see a single justification for it either, or at least one that isn't simply stupid and wrong (wah wah you can't evict people from lower class wormholes as easily! - except evictions in c2s happen just as much as evictions in c5s, and even if they WERE more 'secure' I think that'd be a legitimate trade off for the worse sites/opportunities you have in c1s/c2s...)

Before running around with the nerfstick like a window-licking moron, how about you determine if there is actually a problem, and if there is how your solutions would improve it. Gimping lower class wormholes won't improve them at all, it'll just depoulate them - there'll be less incentive for people to live in them, less incentive for people to evict others from them, etc. They'll be the lowsec of w-space

The idea that you shouldn't need more people than the wormhole can support to take down the tower is a bit flawed and self defeating, I think. I understand the basic idea that requiring more people to 'claim' the system than the system could serve would be problematic, but the major thing I disagree with is the "how many people can the system serve" bit. I think that's quite flawed.

I'm certain more than approximately 10 people could live in a c2 just fine - of course, if their sole purpose was whoring the pve sites an individual members income would be pretty low, but.... maybe PVE isn't their raison d'être? Maybe they're willing to take the hit to their isk-per-hour for the added safety, or easier logistics, or any other of the various trade offs that come with living in a c2? The amount of people who the wormhole could serve will vary massively depending on what they actually want out of wormhole space, and how their corporation is structured and its playstyle - you mentioned transmission lost as having more than 20 people living in a c2... well, ok. Doesn't that kind of prove that lower classes can serve bigger entities?

I think placing arbitrary mechanical limitations on lower class wormholes based on the assumption that only a small handful of players could ever live or use them is quite flawed. And as someone else said, they already have limitations - a more "natural" one, I believe - in the form of increased fuel prices for large towers, and no delicious freighter entrances. Worse still, these limitations would take the lower class wormholes and basically enforce a "THIS IS FOR SMALL GROUPS ONLY" policy on them, whereas currently I believe they're more flexible than that. I also can't think of anywhere else in EVE where artificial limits have been put in place to 'force' things into smaller scale.

I think this whole "lower class wormholes can only serve a few people, therefore they should be gimped so only a few people can evict easier" is just... idiotic. Or maybe it was an argument invented later to justify the "i wanna gimp low class wormholes" idea.

Dscan, grid, and overview will not be possible with docking. You are moved from the grid with the tower to a new single-player instance that resembles the inside of a station. To get dscan, grid, and overview, one of two things will need to happen:

1) Cobble together some hacks to get this information while in the single-player instance based on what the tower object sees in space.

2) Keep players in space and fix station services code.



Really, no one is supposed to be living in wormhole space. If I remember correctly, that was the reason CCP gave for no moon goo and no ice belts. That we have adapted to the restrictions of w-space is in spite of CCP's plans for w-space, or lack thereof, and speaks to the resourcefulness and creativity of EVE's playerbase. If CCP is changing their position and saying it is okay for players to live in w-space, then they should add at least ice belts to the Grav sigs, even if they don't add moon goo.

Assuming then that we're "supposed" to live in w-space, who says you shouldn't have more than 20 players living in a wormhole system? How would one determine the number of people a wormhole system can support? Is CCP (or anyone else) really stupid enough to specify arbitrary numbers for w-space occupancy limits and completely destroy the sandbox and emergent/adaptive behaviour?


With a modular POS, with or without forcefields, we won't see people crawling around to interact with various services. Everyone will appear to be POS spinning while they perform their activities if there are force fields, and everyone will be completely stationary if there is mooring/docking. However, the technical benefits for implementing a modular POS, as well as the conveniences it offers, would offset the little bit of information loss that it presents.

As long as there is no docking (moving players out of space into a single-player instance), we will still at least be able to see that the pilots are online, what they're flying, and when they start to move.


Force fields solve a sticky issue. Without some sort of proximity-based protection zone, what happens when you eject from your (protected) moored ship at a new-POS that does not have a SMA-equivalent? Does the ship stay moored and protected while your pod launches into space, vulnerable? Does the ship get launched into space where someone might shoot it or steal it and the pod stay protected?

Force fields also provide a bit of misdirection for the casual observer. If I don't actually have a scout on-grid with your POS, I don't know what ships are piloted or unpiloted. It forces me to find your POS(es) and forces me to stay on-grid with you to watch that you're active. If all I have to do is use dscan to see a ship to know that ship is active, then that's a massive WoW-life nerf to w-space reconnaisance.

A month of fuel, 30 days supply, is 28,800 fuel blocks for a large tower. If you are purchasing this from a trade hub, it is 144,000 m3 of cargo you need to haul in from k-space. As mentioned, C1-C4 holes can't fit freighters, so you're stuck with Orcas or industrials. C1 holes can't fit Orcas, so you can only use industrials. I can't begin to describe the joys of hauling in paper-thin industrials.

144,000 m3 is 4 trips with a decent industrial (40k m3, about 20m mass). This puts 160m mass on the C1 hole, which is only a 500m hole, just for hauling fuel for the month. This is for one tower for one month for a decently-skilled player. If you want to bring in a couple months supply, for emergencies, or if multiple people want to fuel their tower, because maybe you have a close exit to a trade hub, or if you can't carry 40k m3 per trip, you'll collapse your hole just fueling your towers. And did I mention how fun it was to haul in industrials?

Let's not think about how many trips are required to bring in everything to even set up a tower in a C1, and how many times you'll collapse the static for each tower you bring in. Remember the last time you set up a tower? I do. It wasn't fun. I'm only thankful it wasn't in a C1.

Sure, no one needs to set up a Large tower. But if you do, you already suffer a huge logistical burden, especially in a C1.


Lower class w-space already have some pretty harsh restrictions on them. They don't need artificial limitations just because some lazy scrub fleet can't take down a POS before they get jumped by a third party looking for a fight.

Look what you guys need to realize is change IS HAPPENING. You can't stop it, the objective is to give requirements on what we want. It's not your job to say what is or what can't possibly be done, you're not the game designer. If I said I want to believe able to tell who is active in a POS to gain intelligence. THERE that's my requirement, I don't care how they do it, so don't go and poke holes whining about docking.

I've given my requirement and it's up to them to figure out how to do it. Also what we'd really like to hear is something from SMALLER corps, not the big names. Sorry gunny you don't live in a lower class WH, and nor do I. It's their voice that needs to be heard.

Once again Two Step isn't looking for a long whining post, it would be nice to know what the problem is with force fields so that we could better understand... But we can't.

So how about we realize that change is and will happen, what we need to do is help shape it and make sure our ways of life can remain as much the same as possible.

We all know change is happening, pretty much all of us WANT some change to the awful pos system. Pointing out possible issues with the changes that sound more and more likely to go ahead is part of the the feedback. We're not saying OMG DONT TOUCH POS AT ALL, more along the lines of OMG MAKE SURE X DOESNT BECOME A HUGE ISSUE WHEN YOU CHANGE Y because we know how long it'd take ccp to eventually address 'new issue x'

Anyway, I was in a smaller corp before joining bite me, and we'd tried some living-in-a-c4 (or maybe it was a c3?) wh stuff. I'd certainly not want arbitrary limitations put on me for iffy at best reasons, making life in lower class wormholes even harder/less attractive...

And why should hisec bears be allowed large towers but not a small-medium sized corp trying to eke out some isk and funz in wh space?

And speaking from a purely selfish point of view, I do think such limitations would only serve to depopulate lower class wormholes, and less people in wormhole space = less people for me to shoot at, so I have to be against it.

Arbitrary limits on the occupancy of a lower class w-space is something that does not make sense to me.

If I have a corp with 25 to 30 active players that wish to live in a c2 because it gives me access to HS and lowsec and quite often null sec, then why should i be denied that right in this sandbox.

I don't want to PVE for my living, I want to roam and shoot and kill and die. I can do PI to make the isk I need to reship and go out and do it all over again. I can make some ISK while I PVE or not, I can mine the grav and ladar or not. This is a sandbox and to tell me that I can longer play the game the way I want to play because you wish to impose some arbitrary limits seems to me to be agains what this game was built on.

As a small corp in a c1-c3 if I set up my POS correctly I can defend it against a well organized larger fleet for a while....but in the end if I cannot muster enough forces to evict the invading fleet then they will take down my defenses and my POS.

I am fine with the current POS mechanics, if CCP needs to change it then tell us why. We live in w-space because of it's unique nature and quirkyness. We adapt to the environment. To change that and make it Lowsec without local seems a gross change for no reason.

No I will not rage quit if they make some of these proposed changes, and we will adapt. I am curious how they are going to deal with corps living in c1,c2,c3's that are larger than the arbitrary limit they may impose.

Change for the sake of change is sometimes necessary, but change because I can is often frought with peril. I hope that what ever the plan is in the end it is well though out and that it includes the input of every one from c1-c6. I will bet there are more small players/corp in W-space that the big boys that live in the larger locations.... but that is just a guess

I was there.

this is a valid point.
i will hence rephrase what I have been saying:

forcefields are a fundamental requirement of POSs.
feel free to add docking to it if you must (i wont prefer if you didnt, these are POSs, not stations) but removing the forcefield from POSs is about on par with removing the ability to dock from stations. it's fundamental.



for the record, i think everything else they are planning/talking about is good.
(apart from some of the more obviously stupid things like cloaking POSs...)

The disgraced lawyer clearly wasn't there.