Wormholes

Actually, they do listen sometimes. Have a look at this LINK and see if you can spot what i did for you all... You're welcome btw

Proc, i listened to your interview on eve news today. Nice job!

I think you are taking the right approach by simply intending to represent the voice of the community whether you agree with the varying opinion or not. However, Chitsa also promised to communicate a lot but i think i have seen about three feedback gathering threads from him since we got him elected. I hear he worked hard on the CSM which is great but i voted for him to represent all of us.

How would you feel about committing to regularly scheduled wormhole related discussions, either through forum threads or TS chats?

With regards to T3 balance. You seemed to suggest that a HAC should be stronger that a HAC configured T3. Could you please clarify what you mean?

I feel that if this happens, the community will simply switch to whatever ship is strongest and in addition, the wormhole economy will take a MASSIVE hit (especially in low class wormholes).

I'm more in favor of a T3 redesign rather than a straight up nerf.

I liked your initial posts to do with helping out the lower end of WH space and these match up with my views as to becoming good drivers for growth in all areas of WH space but you have not mentioned what your views are on C5/6 space and if you feel personally they need any changes?

Hey hey!

Apologies for the late response, however I'm going to spend the next little bit responding to the questions and kicking off this discussion again! So, as you mentioned, I do feel that there is plenty of room for improvement in the lower classes that could improve growth and activity in the wormhole community, such as dual statics for C4 wormholes (only statics to other wormholes, preferably one static to lower end and one static to upper end wormhole systems), modifying the yield of lower end sites to be more lucrative for those interested in moving into wormholes that see the lower end yielding less that missions, etc.

As far as C5/C6 space, my view is that the T3 re-balance/POS overhaul are items that will impact the activity in this space. Do I feel that the mechanics for C5/C6 need changing? Not really. I think that the mechanics in the upper end wormholes are not a major factor in the condition of that space. Do I think that additions would be cool? Yes, as I like the ideas of Sleepers attacking the inhabitants, spawning on holes, and I understand that many might not like that idea, but as far as the space itself, I think it is fine and the changes to other mechanics will impact that space and the activity within...

What do you think about C5/C6 space?

Hey Chitsa,

Do you feel some wormholes should be made more valuable than others (same class, not counting effect or static)?
What do you think about black holes?

Changing the value of wormholes would be akin to looking at value differences in null. Some regions are more valuable and the reason was intended to drive wars, so players would fight over valuable space in a forever war, as groups rise and fell. So, do I believe that adding more value to some holes is lucrative? Yes.

Black holes are garbage. They are one of the running jokes within our community. Although I'm not for making them industrial wormholes as discussed in the townhall, I am in favor of changing them.

Would you agree or disagree that K162 signature delay should be introduced because of the auto sig checker?

I personally want them removed, not delayed. I liked the time in wormholes where the inhabitants that weren't on the ball got wrecked. This space isn't supposed to be "easy mode".

Hey Lloyd,

What is your stance on currently existing mass-limitations for all classes c1-c6 - both regarding maximum jump mass and individual jump mass? Scope is especially the barely roll-able c1-connection many people complain about in their c2/c1+hs. Does anything around that need changes, or is the current situation *fine*?

I think that the lower end wormholes could use work for mass-limitations, as the current size makes it tedious for residents to be able to travel/roll like the upper classes. Now that may be seen by some as a perk of moving up, but when I see threads about a "rolling Blackbird", I have to stand back and think about those poor souls. So, I personally feel that it could use work.

What about clone-jumping? Would you advocate anything related to the combination wormhole-clonejump? (Mainly because the meta would take a drastic shift away from T3s if you wouldn't need to scout 20 holes until you get an empire to actually get your mates back with less than 30 jumps to travel, rules to avoid exploitation apply <.<) Also asking this because you normally have either a good null, OR a good hisec entrance, but rarely both.

I'm not a fan of allowing clone jumping from wormhole space. We did discuss this on comms the other night, and one idea was being able to scan out a chain, anchor "satellites" on either side of each hole in the chain that would connect transmission from known space to your wormhole, allowing you to clone jump as long as the satellites are intact and online. It was a playful idea, but was about the only thing I thought might make it fun to allow :)

Hello bubble trout,

What is your stance on allowing 2 monoculus, or perhaps a monoculus and a laser site, to be worn at once?

I'd obviously be for this change, as the only thing I'd change with my current avatar would be to add another monocle.



Also I know its a sensitive subject for some, to what extent do you feel WH residents should have influence on the other aspects of eve online, specifically sov-warfare.

I prefer wormhole residents to be able to impact wormholers more, first. If we can get this fixed, and wormholers have a community that is overflowing with content, then sure let us influence others. Obstergo has a tradition that if we ever see a SOV-less system, we TCU it. It happens, but that is the extent of our "influence." Well that and our ceptor roams... We impact the everything out of ratters :)

My answer would be let's figure out to influence our own before we focus on influence others.

Hey Rek, thank you for taking the time to listen to my interview!

How would you feel about committing to regularly scheduled wormhole related discussions, either through forum threads or TS chats?

This is an excellent idea, and I would certainly commit to hosting CSM townhalls, firesides, and discussions throughout the term. I'd likely plan a quarter at a time and set up a "sticky" in the forums, and in various community channels, the schedule for each quarter's meetings and chats.

With regards to T3 balance. You seemed to suggest that a HAC should be stronger that a HAC configured T3. Could you please clarify what you mean?

Well, to clarify, I'd like to see T2 specific ships being viable in the wormhole community. As long as T3 cruisers, in their current form are preferable over every T2 variant, and isk isn't an issue, why would anyone fly a T2? That is where my concern lies, and why I'd like to address this, as I feel that it impacts our "meta" and lean on T3 Armor/Blap Dread/Archon composition. I guess that in review, the T2 HAC, for instance, should have something that entices players to use it over a T3, but perhaps the T3 has applications that would make it more viable in areas as well.

Do you think CCP should be adding more content and features to wormholes that create conflict or do you think that the players are fully responsible for creating fights (e.g. arranged fights)

I wrote this. I believe that our mentality can be influenced by the mechanics, and that the mechanics can steer the direction of a community. Some of the mentality is completely on the players residing in the community, and some can be attributed to the mechanics. I think in some areas, CCP can change what drives "conflict" in our community.

Thanks!