These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] More lowsec K-K wormholes

First post First post
Author
Winthorp
#221 - 2014-05-20 12:02:41 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Terrorfrodo wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

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]

Gilbaron wrote:
If a K -> C6 connection helps you tackle your OCD, go ahead. It's not a significant change but it can have some interesting consequences. Your original plan was to remove something that sometimes caused interesting situations without disturbing anything meaningfull. This is much better :)


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 :)


We have asked many times for more accessible routes to C4 space to open them up so they are not the isolated care bear havens they are currently with little player interactions from the rest of WH space. Weather you do this via more roaming K-space > C4 connections or to add Dual statics to the C4's themselves is up to you.

I don't think you should be adding more K-space connections to C6 space, they should be able to keep what they have now but please don't give them a stupid amount of k-space connections so they have easy logistics and thus avoid going down deep chains that would remove their interactions from the rest of us WH space residents.
Darren Fox
Overload This
Escalation Theory
#222 - 2014-05-20 12:02:46 UTC
Adding K-C4 and C4-K dynamics would add consistency. Someone living in C4 space would be better qualified to answer, but I know the suggestion of dual W-space statics for C4 have people arguing for and against. I doubt they would dislike the chance for direct K-space from their homes.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#223 - 2014-05-20 12:29:20 UTC
Adding k-space connections to C4s would remove their unique characteristic and thus fundamentally alter them. C4s currently often go without any open connection for many days in a row as long as the residents don't open the static from the inside. And obviously for most residents this is the reason they chose to live in a C4. Whether this is a desirable situation is subject to discussion but any change should be informed by how C4s are currently used.

In other words: If you add more connections to C4s, almost all C4 residents will hate you, so only change it if you don't care Big smile

Personally, if a change is going to be made, I'd prefer more w-space connections. I like the special aspect of C4s that they are without k-space connection; the only true deep space. W-space connections would add activity and reduce safety without sacrificing what makes C4s special.

.

Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#224 - 2014-05-20 12:47:47 UTC
I disagree with the idea that adding k space exits/entrances to C4's would be an improvement. Right now their character is that of deep space which never links directly to kspace. It feels more empty and removed than it is and part of the isolation is likely that because their are no direct kspace doors scouts will often select other legs of the chain to explore rather than paths that lead through c4s.

Adding outgoing wspace wandering holes however would be nice way to give them a bit more connectivity without changing the deep space feel.
Trader13
NOT A FRONT
#225 - 2014-05-20 12:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Trader13
Terrorfrodo wrote:
Adding k-space connections to C4s would remove their unique characteristic and thus fundamentally alter them. C4s currently often go without any open connection for many days in a row as long as the residents don't open the static from the inside. And obviously for most residents this is the reason they chose to live in a C4. Whether this is a desirable situation is subject to discussion but any change should be informed by how C4s are currently used.

In other words: If you add more connections to C4s, almost all C4 residents will hate you, so only change it if you don't care Big smile

Personally, if a change is going to be made, I'd prefer more w-space connections. I like the special aspect of C4s that they are without k-space connection; the only true deep space. W-space connections would add activity and reduce safety without sacrificing what makes C4s special.


This, EXACTLY this.

My main lives in C4s for this reason, due to it being a nice middle ground between lower income c1-c3 and higher income c5-c6. It suits smaller corps who are either lower in members and/or capitals.

EDIT: And while yes we can cut ourselves off more easily, we also do still receive a share of incoming holes from other class of wormholes that we enjoy exploring/farming/fighting/closing so its not like we are able to be completely isolated. It it just on a level much more manageable for a small group than if the entirely of new eden can open holes into us, and also wandering holes spawning within our system.
Tythihoz
Lycosa Syndicate
#226 - 2014-05-20 13:14:45 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
[quote=Terrorfrodo][quote=CCP Greyscale]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 :)


C6's do have k162 from Low and Nullsec.

Getting direct K-space connections to C4's will be a dramatic change. This will introduce something that's not existed before and will probably not have a good response from those who live in C4's today.

I almost lived in a C4 before, and it was intriguing.. tho missing the K-space possibility back then was a bit of a drawback.
Today I would like like the fact that there's no direct k-space intrusion.
Things about W-Space that's been the way they are for so long as W-Space have existed should be changed carefully!
Niart Gunn
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2014-05-20 13:31:51 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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 :)


I'm a bit puzzled. Either I'm misunderstanding what you mean by static or you really need to take a close look at wormholes again and figure out how they actually work. There's not a single C5 in the game that has a static wormhole connecting to K-space, these exist exclusively in C1-C3s, while C4s have no K-connections and C5 and C6 have dynamics, only from one side in the case of C6.

While I would welcome direct connections from K-space to C4 and vice versa for travelling purposes only, I would figure that that's a similarily harsh change for people living in there as removing the dynamic connections from C6s would be. Also, it wouldn't do all that much good for consistency's sake anyways, since there'd still be C2 space as the odd one out with 2 static wormholes.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#228 - 2014-05-20 13:55:49 UTC
Consistency is not really an argument here anyway since we are talking about w-space, which is supposed to be weird and unpredictable. It should be as inconsistent as possible.

Look at Staticmapper: If you know how one system in a region is, you know them all (except for a few regions where you also have to look at the constellation). Every system should be different. Make every system a combination of class, effects, statics and possible dynamics that is not tied to region and thus unpredictable until someone actually finds that system and spends time there.

.

Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#229 - 2014-05-20 14:21:09 UTC
Its going to suck trying to do exploration in lowsec, when you jump into a system and find you are facing a dozen sigs and the vast majority are wh.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.

Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#230 - 2014-05-20 14:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Wander Prian
learn to see which ones are most likely wh's and which are exploration sites. Go back a few pages in this thread and you will find some good tips

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4611304#post4611304 this post especially

Wormholer for life.

Hatshepsut IV
Un.Reasonable
#231 - 2014-05-20 15:58:44 UTC
Adding k-space connections to c4 space would add more variety to low-class wh chains.


Hopefully it would also open up c4s as a logical progression as a place where you can move up from c2-3 and live/grow as a wh-entity.

Public Channel | Un.Welcome

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#232 - 2014-05-20 16:01:13 UTC
Niart Gunn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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 :)


I'm a bit puzzled. Either I'm misunderstanding what you mean by static or you really need to take a close look at wormholes again and figure out how they actually work. There's not a single C5 in the game that has a static wormhole connecting to K-space, these exist exclusively in C1-C3s, while C4s have no K-connections and C5 and C6 have dynamics, only from one side in the case of C6.

While I would welcome direct connections from K-space to C4 and vice versa for travelling purposes only, I would figure that that's a similarily harsh change for people living in there as removing the dynamic connections from C6s would be. Also, it wouldn't do all that much good for consistency's sake anyways, since there'd still be C2 space as the odd one out with 2 static wormholes.


Yeah, you're right, sorry. It's been five years ago since I designed all that stuff, I don't remember the details any more :P In my defense, I'd have checked it if I was actually designing something rather than just coming up with an off-the-cuff example :)

Terrorfrodo wrote:
Consistency is not really an argument here anyway since we are talking about w-space, which is supposed to be weird and unpredictable. It should be as inconsistent as possible.

Look at Staticmapper: If you know how one system in a region is, you know them all (except for a few regions where you also have to look at the constellation). Every system should be different. Make every system a combination of class, effects, statics and possible dynamics that is not tied to region and thus unpredictable until someone actually finds that system and spends time there.


This is a reasonable argument; I don't find it knock-down compelling but it shuffles me back towards the "leave C4 alone" side of things.

Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Its going to suck trying to do exploration in lowsec, when you jump into a system and find you are facing a dozen sigs and the vast majority are wh.


Should be less than one wormhole a system on average, total. We're not going crazy here :)

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#233 - 2014-05-20 16:56:44 UTC
Additional,spawns of wandering KS wormholes from C4's could be interesting, but the overall feature where there is an isolation from KS in c4's is the main reason people choose them.

So increase the spawn rate of C4 > Ks connections = good
ks> C4 = Not Good.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#234 - 2014-05-20 16:57:31 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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 :)


That's nice but I never thought of WHs as a normal game mechanic. To me (and most people I know) they are these crazy, weird, unpredictable things to be explored and puzzled by. Simplification of some mechanics makes sense, but I thought wormholes held that special place which fueled awe, wonder and sense of exploration. I'm actually surprised to the extent that players have been able to break them down.

I'm not saying your suggestion is bad. I'm just saying as someone who doesn't actually live in one I like the unpredictable factor the wormholes provide. To me it's that scary place I venture into once in a while.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!

Desimus Maximus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#235 - 2014-05-20 17:18:26 UTC
Wormholes should be more about, GASP!, wormholes... not connecting k-space to k-space. They already have these things called stargates and jump-bridges that connect k>k.

K>k wh should be rare(r) not more common.
naed21
Iron Knights
#236 - 2014-05-20 17:28:47 UTC
My corp used to live in a C4. It was and still is the worst place we've lived.

It was a combination of lack of k-space and all C4 sites have long range spawns (for some odd reason) that drove us out.

However I personally liked how C4s were unique in that they are the only system that don't have k-spaces. It made you actually go out and find k-space, instead of just sitting around waiting for one to come to you.

Adding k-space to C4s will basically make them C3s with different combat sites.

What we really need are more variations between the classes than just different sites.

I remember when our corp tried to siege a C4 static C1. Since it was before T3 battlecruisers, it was a huge challenge and immensely fun to try and accomplish as we had to build battleships in that C4. The whole reason in fact that that corp lived there was because of the tactical advantage of the C4 never getting k-space. They would always fight on wh-wh connection and most of those connections being to its static C1.

This kind of emergent gameplay is something that I love whs for. They found a tactical advantage in a system we considered worthless, and we found enjoyment in overcoming that tactical advantage. If they could have gotten a k-space right in, there wouldn't have been a point for them to move into that C4 and we would have never attacked them.

Basically I describe the different wh classes to people as C1s being for research/reaction towers, C3s are for solo players, C5s are where wh corps should go, C6s are where the wh pvp corps go and you can ignore C2s and C4s as being redundent. But if you happen to find a C4, it has the cool thing with never getting k-space.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#237 - 2014-05-20 18:15:36 UTC
I agree with the leave the C4<->Ks out for now and look at C4s especially again when you do the tweaks to wormhole space all together.
Right now they are in a weird state where it is actually the best static to farm or for people just farming their hole once a week.
And one of the main reasons for that is that they feel like living somewhere in deep africa.
Took a long time for people to figure that out, but there are now way more inhabited c4s then there were a year ago.
If you think C4 space should be like that donĀ“t do anything to it, otherwise hit it when you rework J-space altogether.

And yes, k->c6 would be nice, just make sure you take some percent away from the c6>K spawnrates to balance it out.

If you really want to go buckwild take away the hardcap on connections to one system (if there really is one in place as most people suspect) and let the RNG create a 15+ connections hole.
Syzygium
Ventures Bar
#238 - 2014-05-20 19:40:48 UTC
tbh, WH connections have become way too predictable and calculatable.

First point:
You should completely remove "static" WHs and make it random what kind of WH spawns next and where it leads. The only fix value should be, that there is at least 1 WH probable at all times. But what kind of WH that is should be unknown until you have found it.

Of course, the different type of connections should have different chances to spawn, so that connections from C6 to Highsec are extremely rare, but C6 to C6 or C6 to C5 are spawning quite often. The more different the class is, the lower the chance to spawn.

Second point:
Make it so, that the WH connection from the WH to the K162 is established on spawn, not on warpin. That means, the connection is open and findable from both sides at all times. This prevents people from collapsing their exits and intentionally isolating their carebear heaven when farming. I never understood why a WH "waits" for someone to warp in, before opening its connection. It neither makes sense nor is it good for the game at all because it allows players to effectively turtle-in for quite some time and grind ISK in an untouchable system (as long as no one finds a random-WH just into that one system, which can take a looooong time).

Make this little change and endure the rain of tears that will come and you have all the connections and traffic and unintentional hostile meetings in W-Space you want, so there is no need to add additional connections any more. Also you have automatically made C6 to "deepest" W-Space and C1 closest to K-Space, as it would be logical.
Winthorp
#239 - 2014-05-20 20:08:13 UTC
Look at all the C4 care bears come out now that they are scared they might have to interact with another player in an MMO. Every recent change or lack therof of chance just keeps pushing WH's into more PVE friendly space and the more we step in that direcetion with every change CCP makes gives me one more reason to leave it and not stay in it and deal with its extra work to PVP
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#240 - 2014-05-20 20:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
Phone interface made a mess of post, please ignore.