Wormholes

I specifically said there are only about 3 proposals that have been reasonable, not 3 ideas.

You seem to be angry that my "main" now lives in null yet seems to have a better grasp on WH space then you do, there is no need to be angry about that and retort to me with insults.

Lol, yeah. I would have thought we wormholers could have put up a better front.

Lets just get to the point. People have to want to live in wormholes. Right now, there is little keeping people inside.

We are thinking too small. We are looking at minor (itty bitty) changes, when the focus should be solely on this:

1) What will bring people into wormholes.
2) What will make them fight.

Right now if a person gets evicted from there home, no biggie. There home (the wormhole itself not the POS) has to be more valuable that they will fight till the last.

Right now, there is no "flashly" loot to cause people to hunt around, search and scan out wormholes in hopes of riches.. or in hopes of killing someone trying to obtain riches.

Wormhole needs a loot system to drive people back into it.

Wormholes needs a value to cause people to fight for them.

People need to have more incentives to say "Lets live here".

There is none at the moment.

Wow a lot of just trash on this thread and no real input, anyways I guess I will throw my 2 cents in.

1. Corp thief, always the first question asked by new players (new to WH) and also kills some of the smaller corps getting started in WH life.
Fix: Rework the POS
Easier Fix: Give the SMA tabs just like the CHA would be a great improvement
Impact: Might get some newer players into WH space, also increase corp security

2. PHA, great idea.. but horrid to work with. Once that one random item gets lost in there you have to blow it up just to unanchor your POS.
Fix: When the PHA is unanchored have the items inside get trashed.
Impact: might **** some people off but would make POS's just that less painful

3. Static WH's. I have always hated how you always get the same class hole every time.
Fix: Change SOME holes with a variable static to other WH space.
Example: instead of a c2/LS/c2 have c2/LS/VS (+ or - 1) so when you static reopens it could be a c1, c2 or c3. Or a c4/VS (+ or - 2) your static would be a c2, c4, or c6.
Impact: Would change up life as usual

4. Bring more industry to WH's using WH loot.
Fix: Start off with something easy like t3 ammo. Have it so that it is about the same DPS if not lower than t2, instead give it 2 dmg types and maybe a different effect. The BPC's could be seeded in radar and data sites. Have them built off the t1 ammo types (need both types of missiles and also some sleeper loot to put them together)
Example:
T3 Awakened Heavy Missile
75 Kinetic dmg 75 EM dmg
max flight time 10 sec Max velocity 4000m/s
base shield dmg 90
base armor dmg 112.5
Impact: Would see a increase of industrial players inside WH space.

I have a few other ideas that I need to finish working out on paper before I post them

I support this product and/or service

Double, sorry XD

I was never attempting to encourage occupation, or making occupation easier. If you search my previous post in this thread you'll note that I'm of the opinion that statics existing at all is part of what's wrong with wormholes.

Wormholes weren't ever designed for occupation. Yes, we occupied them because we're stubborn arrogant twats that don't care what CCP's intent is. We shouldn't be encouraging and enabling easier ways to occupy large swaths of wspace. Daytripping is the original design intent of wspace and while it shouldn't be impossible (as it is now) to live out of a hole without outside assistance, it shouldn't be a design goal either. Adding ice to wormholes is the only pro-occupancy change wormholes need. This allows people to fuel their POS.

Wormholes aren't supposed to be space where you hold "sov" and have "territory"

The fact that the idea of "encouraging occupancy" even exists belies the core problems of wormhole space. Occupancy killed wormhole exploration, and turned it in to nullsec 2.0

It's my personal opinion that for wormholes to work they need to be naturally hostile to occupancy, naturally hostile to large fleets, naturally hostile to alliance and batphoning warfare, and naturally unpredictable and practically unmappable.

So yes, I want to encourage daytripping, or more specifically week-tripping, and I want to make it effectively impossible to permanently occupy w-space. Decay timers, escalating sleeper raids on POSes, anything that halts once and for all the idea of permanently occupying a fixed point in wspace. I believe that the ability to live, long term, in wspace is the core problem with wspace. It turns what's supposed to function as a great and lucrative unknown with a high degree of operational risk in to a predictable, boring, and increasingly inaccessible sequel to nullsec. We already have a buttload of nullsec systems, and we don't need more.

If you want to occupy space, you should be doing it in Null, where the mechanics are built to encourage occupancy. The concept of occupancy in wspace is born of extreme risk aversion coupled with high ISK return and gaming of wormhole mechanics that should have obfuscated and counteracted it. people wanted to "own" valuable systems without needing to deal with nullblob warfare. They moved in to wormholes, and quickly proceeded to turn them in to blob warfare.

Id like to keep blob warfare in null where it belongs.

I think the fixes to wspace, and wormhole mechanics in general should focus around increasing and rewarding use of space while penalizing and decreasing occupancy of space, if that makes any sense.

@Winthorp - you seem to be missing the point of the thread. Ideas. Suggestions (et cetera et cetera). Some might be rough around the edges or overshadowed by more fleshed out ideas. But you opinion is exactly that. Yours. Not any more or less valid than anyone else's idea(s) and barring actual discussion of pro/con your opinion is easily ignored.

Because nobody owns or occupies any space in null right? Oh wait. People own so much of it they actually RENT it out to other players... because those players want the ability to occupy it SO badly that they'll pay someone to do so without the risk of getting smashed. Why? Because that space is valuable as **** in terms of resources, ratting, etc. and difficult to defend.

Just because you, personally, don't have a force large enough to carve out a piece of it does not mean that it doesn't encourage occupancy. In fact... people have really big fights over who owns what there all the time!

I don't need you to explain your position. I understand it fully. You feel you can't get enough "gudfites" in wormholes because nobody lives there, and thus when you roll your holes you find nothing but empty space. You'd like to pop a hole after the DT and find hole after hole of occupied systems full of people to gun down, POSes to potshot at, and otherwise get a bunch of PvP content, right?

You'd like to do all of the above with minimal risk to your actual holdings and the ability to pretty effectively pull your **** in, without risk of getting it torched by a giant blob of hotdropping capitals. You'd like to keep a small organization that can engage with other small organizations in a limited fashion, andn ot have to commit to anything long term.

This is why people claim to occupy wormholes. They get a payoff that's disproportionate to actual risk for a very minor inconvenience. They get PvP with interesting rulesets and spotty intel, but it isn't WHY people occupy wormholes.

People occupy wormholes because it's worth more than null for small groups and less risky. That's really all there is too it. The fact that people move in to what's supposed to be the LEAST safe space in the game because it's actually MORE safe than everywhere but empire is a problem.

I stand by the opinion that it should be MORE risky, LESS safe, and MORE rewarding for short term operations than permanent single-point occupation.

I'd wager that the whole cap escalation thing was intended to effectively stop overpowering those sites, and that they expected people to somehow do the sites in uber-shiny groups of subcaps or something. Basically, I get the impression escalations were intended to discourage and prevent easily farming and overpowering the sites, rather than how we actually use them to farm the sites even more efficiently. I'd put ISK on them being tested in a bubble with officer mods on T3s with perfect skills or something, being barely doable and then had an "endgame" label slapped on them. Then someone said "what about capitals?" and the escalations were added to prevent too much ezmode.

I think they naively figured that people doing stuff in high level wspace would be a sporadic and occasional thing when someone "got lucky" and found a fast connection.

Then, because we love ISK and gaming CCPs mechanics, we broke the whole dang thing and turned it in to the WH meta we have now, which we can't just turn off because of what's already invested there. I'm pretty sure nobody designing apocrypha actually stopped to ask "what if they build caps and just live there?" which was a failure on the part of the design team. because it's obvious that's EXACTLY the first thing any EVE player is going to think when presented with something that lucrative.

I think it's really a question of the soul of WH space. Do we want it to be livable, or do we want it to be random and mysterious. I don't think you can really have it both ways or one or the other type of play is going to suffer. Currently we've shoehorned occupation in to the cracks in a system that wasn't designed for it. It's not possible to just make a few small changes to fix that whole system. CCP has to decide if they want to increase WH livability at the expense of difficulty and mystery, or increase difficulty and mystery at the expense of livability.

Currently WH space doesn't do either particularly well, but hey, the ISK is good so we put up with it.