Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Yup. 100% bug. We originally had connections from all Cs to K in Apocrypha development, and then cut the links between C6/C4 and K a month or so (I guess?) before release. I actually cut the C2 link as well initially, but then put it back in.

The rare C6-K wormholes only exist because somebody (ie, me) added the C6 systems to the C5-K wormhole set by accident. I have now fixed this and it'll be shipping in Crius.

Ok thanks for confirm.

Now we have an issue. I live in C6 space and this will affect the movement of caps in c6 dramatically. And for the worse. Was this wh change run past the CSM? Wh space has been this way for way too long to suddenly change the connection on short notice.

Ok here are my points in rebuttal:

1) I manage some of the logistics for a medium sized C6 corporation. UGH doesn't even begin to encompass my response to your proposed poorly announced change when considering cap movements. And I have quite a lot of caps to move.

2) Until now virtually nobody knew it was an inconsistency. C6/C5 is characterised by the LS/NS connections for caps. Your "bug" has been a feature for so long it's a way of life. Extending this you could make the argument that since wh were never intended to be lived in you should remove everyone living in them. What you intended and what happened are two different things. Welcome to emergent gameplay

3) Decisions have been made months or years in advance on what kind of space you want to live in and what connectivity you have based on longstanding existing mechanics/features. This would significantly alter those decisions for the worse.

4) Given the case for a C6/C3 static it would significantly impair logistics. These wormholes are rare but significant events. Their loss would adversely impair power projection for small to medium sized corporations. I'd have to wait for other c5 connection and hope for the a or mine/move minerals in. I don't think you fully appreciate just how **** hauling minerals is and just how **** wh industry is.

5) If it goes ahead and it is changed, given a decision that current system is not suitable any more, I would petition a significant number of caps to be moved. If a bug got them in, a petition should fix them.

Aright, after talking to the design team, we're going to roll back the bug fix on the basis that it's not really necessary and probably too disruptive.

In order to square out the circle properly, how do people here feel about adding some actual k-C6 routes on top of the C6-k routes we'll be keeping? That would give us a properly consistent design rather than a "whoops".

[edit] Props to Nox52 for a well-argued and reasonably level-headed response to a potentially major disruption. That post is a big part of why this is getting rolled back :)

Not right now, no. We want to revisit w-space in a more comprehensive way in future, but we're focused on Kronos and Crius ATM and there won't be significant changes specifically for wormholes in either, beyond what's discussed in this thread :)

As a jumper of many caps in C6-space I would appreciate K-C6 connections, in line with what exists in C5 space today. More connections = more pvp opportunities, and visitors from K-space into Polaris would be greeted with a warm welcome.

It would also make it slightly more risky to farm in C6 space, which can't be a bad idea.

Very intrigued and would love more day tripping into null or low sec (kinda like reverse wormhole day tripping). So what are the details so they can be discussed.


Also yes wormhole industry is just **** atm so nreally does need a bit of a hand.

Edit double post: I do sometime fail at posting.

Good call. C6-K connections are not rare at all, in fact very common, and are extremely important for every c6 corp, especially c6/c6 corps. They enable these corps to move capitals into their homes or out of them. Also of course they provide valuable routes into Empire. Removing them would be extremely disruptive.

But funny that devs didn't know that when every experienced wh dweller has known for many years that the only class never directly connected to k-space is c4.

I know exactly how it's supposed to be set up :P

(Anyone have an opinion about linking C4 in both directions in the same way?)

[edit]



It's a little bit about the spreadsheet being nicer, but mostly about consistent rules that players can understand and, importantly, extrapolate into new situations. Weird exceptions are (marginally!) harder to explain and harder to internalize, and when they pile up they add to the barrier of understanding in the game. The reason I'm thinking now about linking C4s in the same way is that then there's a reasonably clear system "C1,2,3,5 have k-space statics and dynamics, C4,6 only have k-space dynamics" - and if you understand C4s, I can say "C6s have no k statics" and you can think "I bet they work just like C4s" and be correct without anyone needing to explain further.

Currently 1-3+5 have static/dynamic, C4 has neither, C6 has dynamics but only one way. Messy and a little bit harder to understand. If we can make many many changes to the game that make it slightly easier to understand and don't harm the gameplay, the game in aggregate gets much more accessible while still being just as good. Which is a good thing from our perspective :)