These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Question about wormholes (statics vs wandering holes)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-10-05 14:29:56 UTC
Not sure of that encounter, might be, this one happened like that though http://fcftw.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=14672116
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-10-05 14:51:07 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
What a load of horsesh*t. Using scouts, playing it smart, planning ahead IS done in an effort to make the situation as safe as possible. You are just playing with semantics to make it sound cooler.

Doing those things in an effort to make your ISK making as safe and successful as possible does not go against the pro PVP attitiude of wormholers. We all need to make isk to fly those fancy ships to their death.


Nope, there's a big difference in how the scouting is being done. For purely defensive scouting the scout is there to give you notice of someone closing in on you, in which case you simply close shop and leave. For what I described you carry on what you're doing in hopes of getting the other fleet to jump you, all the while having your on grid fleet drop some webs in favor of having more points for the upcoming battle. You can think of it as a hybrid of baiting for pvp and making isk with the pve portion. Extremely high risk with big rewards as well, just how it should be.



No you are still playing semantics. And either way you are scouting to make your activities "safer". Safer doesn't mean you will POS up necessarily. "Safer" for your fleet can mean giving you the proper intel to be prepared for an incoming fight.

I think it is safe to say nobody, no matter how PVP oriented they are, likes surprise buttsex. So you do the things you can to avoid that situation.

You are trying to paint this idea of making your PVE "safer" as some carebear OMG I CAN't FIGHT MUST POS UP, crap when it isn't.

Also, your method may work great in the higher level sites, where you have Caps on the field (can refit on the fly) and logi. You are already fighting like a PVP gang in many ways.

Two examples from a non-elite PVP, High class wormhole corp.

One day I'm working from home. See our C3 has a couple sites. Log my alts in (nobody else was on) and run them. 2 Tengu's and a scout on the static. Almost done and I get a new sig pop up. .25 signal (almost always a k12) I warp the tengu's back to the POS and quickly scan it down. Sit on the hole to see what shows up. Turns out to be a fairly big Corp (100 or so members) and a sizable gang forming on the hole. Far more than I can take on by myself. So I log and get back to work. I'm not against PVP but I'm also not gonna throw ships into a gang where I have no chance either.

Another day we are again clearing out some sites in the C3. Another k162 forms about halfway through. This time a random incoming HS. Hoping to maybe bait a fight I reship to a PVP drake to finish clearing the site solo as bait.

The scouting is the same. The response is different. But in both cases the scouting is there to give us the intel to make an informed decision as to our response. Whether you want to call that making your situation "safer" or not is just playing with different words with essentially the same meaning.
Archdaimon
Merchants of the Golden Goose
#23 - 2012-10-05 15:05:59 UTC
Uuuh I started a debate.

I don't want to play semantics. Honestly not minimizing risk while doing pve is wrong.
However, when most people say this, they really mean "I want to avoid pvp all together".

Doing pve in wormholes always carry a huge risk. "As safe as possible" is a delusion that might cause someone to think that they, by doing x, might attain something resembling safe.

WH space is unsafe per definition. As safe as possible is never even close to safe, hence safe being a dellusion.

Play smart, yes
Play coward, no

Wormholes have the best accoustics. It's known. - Sing it for me -
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-10-05 15:30:30 UTC
Archdaimon wrote:
Uuuh I started a debate.

I don't want to play semantics. Honestly not minimizing risk while doing pve is wrong.
However, when most people say this, they really mean "I want to avoid pvp all together".

Doing pve in wormholes always carry a huge risk. "As safe as possible" is a delusion that might cause someone to think that they, by doing x, might attain something resembling safe.

WH space is unsafe per definition. As safe as possible is never even close to safe, hence safe being a dellusion.

Play smart, yes
Play coward, no


Well said.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2012-10-10 13:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nex apparatu5
To clarify: I plan to take a group of me and my friends to WH space at some point in the future. I have done WH PvP in the past, and the techniques haven't changed much for finding fights from what I've read (rolling statics and such)

However, we need risk to support that PvP habit, and wh space is quite profitable in that respect. Obviously nothing is ever 100% safe, and that goes double for space without local.

It would be foolish, however, to not minimize risk as much as possible while pveing to ensure the maximum isk goes to our wallets and pvp stash. Also, knowing the strategy people use to pve safely allows you to hunt pvers more effectively.

I fully expect that any ship we bring into the hole is not coming out alive. With that said, I'd prefer them to last as long as possible.
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2012-10-14 03:30:48 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To clarify: I plan to take a group of me and my friends to WH space at some point in the future. I have done WH PvP in the past, and the techniques haven't changed much for finding fights from what I've read (rolling statics and such)

However, we need risk to support that PvP habit, and wh space is quite profitable in that respect. Obviously nothing is ever 100% safe, and that goes double for space without local.

It would be foolish, however, to not minimize risk as much as possible while pveing to ensure the maximum isk goes to our wallets and pvp stash. Also, knowing the strategy people use to pve safely allows you to hunt pvers more effectively.

I fully expect that any ship we bring into the hole is not coming out alive. With that said, I'd prefer them to last as long as possible.

Don't think in terms of "minimizing PvE risk," instead think in terms of "how can we best take advantage of the opportunities before us?" IOW: taking advantage of opportunities to bait someone into jumping you is a good idea out here in W-space :) Good point on counter-strategy, though.
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-10-21 16:02:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
Faulx wrote:
On constellation statics: not all the data is in yet, but I'm toying with the idea that these don't exist. I once found a post (and am not sure where it is now... shoulda BM'd it) from way back in the early days of wormholes, where a dev says something to the effect "we're going to increase the connectivity of the wormhole network". Surrounding posts, indicate that shortly there after Class 2 systems got there second static.... that is to say C2s didn't always have 2 statics. If that's the case and C2s followed the same scheme as most other classes of systems, then there were C2 statics to High Sec, and all other C2 wormholes were "wandering" wormholes to w-space. When this change happened, the second static was created and, we can see, that it is always to w-space. I posit, that, meanwhile, the C2 wandering wormholes were were not removed. From our perspective this means that from time to time an "extra" wormhole of the w-space static type would appear. These "extra" wormholes aren't "static" type at all, but the remnants of the C2 wandering wormhole network.

My supporting evidence of this so far is over 100 daily data points in C1 space (many of which are from systems that share the same constellation), none of which has an "extra" static. Meanwhile in just over 20 data points in C2 space, there is 1 "extra" static (which is the same, nearly 5% rate of occurrence I mentioned earlier for "wandering wormholes" in C1 space). I still need to examine other classes of w-space, but I suspect stories of extra statics in C3s may be in error (I haven't heard any stories of extra statics in c5 or c6s, and I have had someone with over 3 months of data state there were no extra statics in c4 space).

@Ashimat, There's probably a lot more "churn" in the wormhole network these days, so new holes are a lot quicker to cycle through. Also, there's indications that Quantum Flux Generators are very likely to create a variant of the N432 wormhole from null to c5, adding to the total number of N432s rather than pulling one from the existing network. Thus the odds of a N432 may actually be higher.

Apologies for the necro, but to bring this thread back to where it was before it got derailed by the argument...

This seems to be the most sensible explanation for the C2 "extra" wormholes I have seen so far. Do you think this should be formally released yet, or are you still gathering supporting data?

As to the N432/Quantum Flux Generator business; have you noticed that the distribution of N432 connections seems "skewed" towards certain areas of space, most notably the Dronelands?
Faulx
Brother Fox Corp
#28 - 2012-10-24 14:53:25 UTC
I still need to gather a few hundred data points in c3s to make sure the theory holds water.

I have heard some folks say that C5 to null connections are skewed (with the notion that the flux generators are changing the odds in favor of particular, remote nullsec systems), but I have no data one way or the other.

All I have indicating that Quantum Flux Generators are adding (unique) wormholes is this very odd scan in Fade made with a DSP. Note, there are two N432s, and one of them is not like the other. I'm also beginning to suspect that the R943 measured to make these charts was a made by a QFG, thus having an abnormal sig str, and normally belongs in the 1/80 rather than the 1/40 band. Again, I still need more data to be sure.

20:00 6/29/2012
L-C3O7 -0.4 (Fade) M0 star, level 5 military index, level 5 strategic index
ELZ-356 .02% Shadow Serpentis Fleet Staging Point (unk) 1/80
WKZ-788 .10% wormhole X702 *C3* 1/20
DLZ-910 .10% wormhole N432 *C5* (less than day) 1/20 <- this is an anomaly, should be 1/10
HLZ-694 .20% Serpentis Fortress (unk) 1/10
BLZ-018 .20% Serpentis Fortress (unk) 1/10
QKZ-112 .20% wormhole N432 *C5* (eol) 1/10
Previous page12