These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#241 - 2014-05-20 20:42:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
Syzygium wrote:
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.


This suggestion seems like a rather extreme change for what is in general a rather well functioning landscape. I would have been excited by the idea If you had proposed instead that usually the statics of each system are as they are now but some small per cent of time (perhaps 5% or less) the usual static was replaced by a different connection associated with the same class of space. This would retain the usual character of the hole the vast majority of the time while allowing that every now and then something magical happens.

I do agree that long ago before I understood the landscape wormholes seemed a bit more mysterious as I didn't know that there was no such thing as a c2/c2/high or a c2/c4/ls or even that I should skip scanning it and roll the door based on the region/constellation/what staticmapper says. A small random variation would return the mystery without throwing everything to the winds. The space itself is pretty good, lets not ask for things that would mess it up.
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#242 - 2014-05-20 22:11:55 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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 :)



It is becoming more and more common that I'll find an upwards of three to four wormholes in some systems, it is a proper waste of time sometimes.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#243 - 2014-05-21 01:30:53 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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



Since 2009 I have longed mournfully for C4 to k-space. It was true for 2-3 years that C4's were deserted, but then the marauder buff took care of that, since you can now solo C4's in marauders and, frankly, a lack of k-space connectivity is a good thing in this situation as it reduces the chances of a k-space explorer spawning a connection into your C4 bear den and (potentially) playing stacks-on with your pimp chariot.

Since it is clear that you did a great job of w-space to begin with, even if you left a few idiosyncracies in like the C6->K connections, so good in fact you didn't even know half the stuff existed yourself, and you haven't really had to do more to your work than add nebula effects and nerf the odd Magnetar problem, and remove bumping of wormholes (you bastard, that was so much fun), I am going to go against my mournful longing for C4->K connections and say no.

I mean, i want them. But there's no compelling reason to connect C4's with k-space. People are used to it, it's a tradition, it is just the way things are, so if it's worked for 5 years, leave it as such. People will find ways to protect their bear chariots in C4's with or without k-space connections.

But, while I've got you here and can be reasonably assured you are in fact looking at a topic (much like a sighting of Bigfoot, the attention of a CCP Greyscale is rare), would you care to comment on black holes? There was a gigantic threadnaught filled with nerd rage and silly ideas on how to "fix" black holes, and things seemed to stall. Are Black Hole systems still up for review, or are we all happy to carry on as they are, whereby C1-4 are doable but C5 and C6 are just not inhabitable (farmable)?

You could even comment on the thread in the Wormholes section if that's more appropriate.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Angsty Teenager
Broski North
#244 - 2014-05-21 07:12:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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


I think that you should design/change wormholes the way you seem fit. I'm not really keen on the whole "let the players decide on changes in the game" aspect.

Mostly because I think that it removes a lot of the emergent and adaptive gameplay that we see in eve. If you let people design the space they live in, they design it for convenience. Few people design their own space to make things harder for them, so I think the perspective of the player isn't balanced and therefore is not a good perspective to balance by.

That said I still have an opinion of course. I think you should increase the links to w-space systems everywhere. So yes.

Also, will the mechanics of K162 spawning ever be changed? I.e. The way it works right now is that K162's don't spawn as a sig for scanning unless the corresponding wormhole entity (H296, Z142, etc... static or dynamic) has been warped to. Similar to how mission complexes don't spawn unless they've been warped to at least once. Will we at some point see the corresponding K162 sig spawn as soon as the other side has spawned?

dirtydebbs
the wreking crew
#245 - 2014-05-21 09:22:55 UTC
Darren Fox wrote:
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.



my two pence worth on this is THE only k-space you want need in a c4 would be a NULL only! its the only wh systems in eve that u have to scan to get to k space and being that its a farming heaven, but there are a lot of small gang pvpers who set up in them for that reason c4-c4 gang fests and small gang fights, if adding a low/hs connection then all ure doing is feeding the farmers easier isk making with no risk reward at least they have to scan at a minimum 2 whs to get out to sell up and a majority of the time there exits are low sec.

if having a null dynamic this would being more pvpers into c4 space cos they can roam small gang also when a c6/5 chain connects then there's the no longer circle jerk c4 roundabout they have null sec small gang roam exits, before u mention it yes I have mentioned a lot of pvp, but also pveing will also mean c4 residents can also farm in null and being just another random connection its not hard to close it or not spawn it, just means ure going to have to actively scan it first then do what u need to do.

p.s. thouws that know of my wonderful typing yeh my thumbs still dont work :)
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#246 - 2014-05-21 09:49:33 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
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



Don't try to attack us for not wanting change that improves your gameplay while adverse killing ours. C4 corps aren't anywhere as big or blobby as your guys in C5/C6 space. Not every1 can field 30 tech 3's in a moments notice.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#247 - 2014-05-21 10:03:52 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Trinkets friend wrote:

But, while I've got you here and can be reasonably assured you are in fact looking at a topic (much like a sighting of Bigfoot, the attention of a CCP Greyscale is rare), would you care to comment on black holes? There was a gigantic threadnaught filled with nerd rage and silly ideas on how to "fix" black holes, and things seemed to stall. Are Black Hole systems still up for review, or are we all happy to carry on as they are, whereby C1-4 are doable but C5 and C6 are just not inhabitable (farmable)?

You could even comment on the thread in the Wormholes section if that's more appropriate.


Fozzie has Black Holes on his "to make less bad" list :)

[edit] Also re the topic at large, I'm currently leaning towards just leaving C4s as they are pending a more comprehensive review in future :)
RcTamiya Leontis
Magister Mortalis.
#248 - 2014-05-21 10:10:17 UTC
I must say, a PvP Corp in a C4 nowdays has huge issues to actually find fights.
We aint enough to even try a balls deep brawl with entities as ixtab, lazerhawks,..... ( the list in theory includes any t3 fleet bigger than 15-20 with minimum of 3-4 guardians) without having our entire corp online, combat ready AND possible backup allready formed .....

That beeing said, even with a C2 connection you only find very very dead space. We like the isolation of our C4 as a Base. That the PvE income in C1-C4 needs some love is known, but in a C4 it's not that bad, however when i ask people what the best pvp hole is, i get told "get a static c5" and sadly, i have to agree there.
C4 isolation is fine but your static is the most important thing there and when even a C2 static with it's potential high traffic doesn't generate any fights, instead it may be this one lone drake you see and prefer to ransoom instead of blowing him up because 10:1 gank is nothing we like ( but sometimes we do), then you know that there's something wrong with wspace currently, as we get more potential fights from incoming C4's opened by a C5 or 00 entity than from wspace inhibatants from C1-C4 space.

Now with that context said, I would like to see "some" C4 -> 00 (no low sec, no high sec), C4 is deep space and i really would like to keep it like that, as C4 is special and should keep it's specialness, in that case "some" C4 -> 00 wormholes does mean ~ 1 a week in average.
It would keep the specialfeeling of C4 space, Carebears can decide if they open it, close it instantly, or just ignore it, their meta wouldn't change, however PvP corps in C4 may find themseles able to roam in 00 which creates content (pvp) for them.

Still with that beeing said i want and at the same time don't want dualstatics for C4, why ?
Because i really want to keep the isolated feeling of C4s, but at the same time i think adding a 2nd w-space static is a good idea, for example
C4 -> C1 gets an additional C6 // C4 -> C2 gets an additional C5 // C4 -> C3 gets an additional C4 // C4->C4 gets an additional C4 ( yes dual c4 static i am aware of that, but it's fine if you think about it as C4 travelhubs) // C4 -> C5 gets an addiotonal C2 // C4 -> C6 gets an additional C1
That wouldn't change the deepspacefeeling, but would increase the traffic IF you choose to open both statics and wouldn't make any difference if you choose collapse both and to not open them, also it adds more interaction with Players ( oh my god Shocked )

Also i would like to see 1 capital jump bothways allowed for C4 <-> C5 / C4 <-> C6 while keeping the 2b mass limitation, but that's a different story and all people would hate me for that idea :P (Yes i am aware of the fact that you only need 1 CArrier then who jumps into the C5/C6 and jumps back to close, but nowdays every decent wh corp/alliance is able to close ANY 2b/3b mass hole with an equal speed without getting trapped)

Summary :

- We need more activity in wspace !
- Dualstatics for C4, well I'd say yes, go for it (NO kspace statics !)
- Wandering K-space for C4, definetly but only 1 a week in Average and 00 only
- May think about the above mentioned Capitalthing ?
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#249 - 2014-05-21 10:25:25 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
If there was to be a change to C4s increasing or changing the number of statics or incoming wormholes, there really would be a need for a combat holecloser.
CCP Greyscale, please look at this and have a word with the CSM as it really will be a major quality of life improver, with no downside.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4618663#post4618663

It will encourage hole rolling and hence more activity and all that entails.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
RcTamiya Leontis
Magister Mortalis.
#250 - 2014-05-21 10:38:36 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
If there was to be a change to C4s increasing or changing the number of statics or incoming wormholes, there really would be a need for a combat holecloser.
CCP Greyscale, please look at this and have a word with the CSM as it really will be a major quality of life improver, with no downside.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4618663#post4618663



A combatcloser ?
Okay i give you a hint -> 8-9 Spidertanked Battleships with 100mn mwd.

costs ~ 280 mil each
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#251 - 2014-05-21 10:44:29 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
RcTamiya Leontis wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
If there was to be a change to C4s increasing or changing the number of statics or incoming wormholes, there really would be a need for a combat holecloser.
CCP Greyscale, please look at this and have a word with the CSM as it really will be a major quality of life improver, with no downside.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4618663#post4618663



A combatcloser ?
Okay i give you a hint -> 8-9 Spidertanked Battleships with 100mn mwd.

costs ~ 280 mil each



I am fully aware, as is every wormholer, of just how much a pain in the arse that is.
And just how much that is as much fun as gnawing your own foot off.
And hence is avoided at all possible costs.

There is always an unpleasant alternative that can be chosen, most, - no All wormholers, - do not, which is why the Orca is the Defacto hole closer. Try your idea for fun on a c5 static.Shocked you do know about polarization, don't you? And you do know that it is impossible to know exactly what mass is needed to close the hole, don't you?

The reason we roll holes, is not to Carebear, It is to find holes where people are ready to fight.
Any muppet can shoot an Orca, but mostly they POS up when facing opposition. Or stay cloaked up, on the hole, effectively blueballing everything for the entire day.

Trying to bait, trick, or annoy the aware but unwilling into a fight, is just not going to be a good use of time.

This will let holes sensibly be rolled where there are a couple of cloakies on the other side who will not uncloak for anything other than an easy kill.

When there are people willing to fight, on the hole, this will be a great source of fun. And epic small group combat.

It is not meant as an easy fix for anything, or some "magic" solution, just the right tool for the job.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Winthorp
#252 - 2014-05-21 11:11:50 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:

But, while I've got you here and can be reasonably assured you are in fact looking at a topic (much like a sighting of Bigfoot, the attention of a CCP Greyscale is rare), would you care to comment on black holes? There was a gigantic threadnaught filled with nerd rage and silly ideas on how to "fix" black holes, and things seemed to stall. Are Black Hole systems still up for review, or are we all happy to carry on as they are, whereby C1-4 are doable but C5 and C6 are just not inhabitable (farmable)?

You could even comment on the thread in the Wormholes section if that's more appropriate.


Fozzie has Black Holes on his "to make less bad" list :)

[edit] Also re the topic at large, I'm currently leaning towards just leaving C4s as they are pending a more comprehensive review in future :)



No surprise here at all, every recent CCP touch to WH's has made PVE safer.

I only wait for the Dev post that says "No instant local chat was a bug and will be fixed soon" to swing your final turd over WH space.
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#253 - 2014-05-21 11:15:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Necharo Rackham
Kaeda Maxwell wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
corbexx wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
Sounds good, but as the guy said earlier, make it easy to tell WHs apart from useful signatures right away for ratters so we dont spend time scanning down unwanted WHs



You should learn about sig sizes that would help you ignore a fair bit.

I thought they removed the ability to determine signatures based upon their signature strength?


No just the Deep Space Probes method died with deep space probes.


You can do exactly the same thing with Combat Probes instead - except in those rare systems which are too big.
Winthorp
#254 - 2014-05-21 11:20:40 UTC
Adriana Nolen wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
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



Don't try to attack us for not wanting change that improves your gameplay while adverse killing ours. C4 corps aren't anywhere as big or blobby as your guys in C5/C6 space. Not every1 can field 30 tech 3's in a moments notice.


You mock me for PVPing in a larger group when you don't PVP at all... Top kek.
RcTamiya Leontis
Magister Mortalis.
#255 - 2014-05-21 12:12:33 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
RcTamiya Leontis wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
If there was to be a change to C4s increasing or changing the number of statics or incoming wormholes, there really would be a need for a combat holecloser.
CCP Greyscale, please look at this and have a word with the CSM as it really will be a major quality of life improver, with no downside.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4618663#post4618663



A combatcloser ?
Okay i give you a hint -> 8-9 Spidertanked Battleships with 100mn mwd.

costs ~ 280 mil each



I am fully aware, as is every wormholer, of just how much a pain in the arse that is.
And just how much that is as much fun as gnawing your own foot off.
And hence is avoided at all possible costs.

There is always an unpleasant alternative that can be chosen, most, - no All wormholers, - do not, which is why the Orca is the Defacto hole closer. Try your idea for fun on a c5 static.Shocked you do know about polarization, don't you? And you do know that it is impossible to know exactly what mass is needed to close the hole, don't you?

The reason we roll holes, is not to Carebear, It is to find holes where people are ready to fight.
Any muppet can shoot an Orca, but mostly they POS up when facing opposition. Or stay cloaked up, on the hole, effectively blueballing everything for the entire day.

Trying to bait, trick, or annoy the aware but unwilling into a fight, is just not going to be a good use of time.

This will let holes sensibly be rolled where there are a couple of cloakies on the other side who will not uncloak for anything other than an easy kill.

When there are people willing to fight, on the hole, this will be a great source of fun. And epic small group combat.

It is not meant as an easy fix for anything, or some "magic" solution, just the right tool for the job.



People who only decloak for an Orca will not decloak for a combatship of any kind ....
That beeing said, i understandyour need to close a hole with 300mil mass as critical state, which is excactly 1 Orca or 1 Battleship jumping both ways with MWD on, however you say you can't 100% know the mass of a wormhole, i can tell you if it is your static or yo uwere online when it opened, you are 100% able to know it's mass and i asume you are able to calculate mass :)
To instaclose a 2b mass hole 100% riskfree in 30 seconds you need 5 BS 1 Orca, for a 3B hole you only need 2-3 Bs OR a 2nd Orca more ....

For the blueballing issue ... well guess what we started to convo/ write in local people who allready spotted us and ask for fights, to simply save blueballing, as result we had some very nice conversations, met nice people and yes we even had a fight once without any kills as gentlemensagreement. And we haven't been ignored once yet ;)

For C5 well you have more Carebears there than in C2 space ..... :/ but you also have a lot pvp corps/allys out there ;)
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#256 - 2014-05-21 12:33:57 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
RcTamiya Leontis wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
RcTamiya Leontis wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
If there was to be a change to C4s increasing or changing the number of statics or incoming wormholes, there really would be a need for a combat holecloser.
CCP Greyscale, please look at this and have a word with the CSM as it really will be a major quality of life improver, with no downside.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4618663#post4618663



A combatcloser ?
Okay i give you a hint -> 8-9 Spidertanked Battleships with 100mn mwd.

costs ~ 280 mil each



I am fully aware, as is every wormholer, of just how much a pain in the arse that is.
And just how much that is as much fun as gnawing your own foot off.
And hence is avoided at all possible costs.

There is always an unpleasant alternative that can be chosen, most, - no All wormholers, - do not, which is why the Orca is the Defacto hole closer. Try your idea for fun on a c5 static.Shocked you do know about polarization, don't you? And you do know that it is impossible to know exactly what mass is needed to close the hole, don't you?

The reason we roll holes, is not to Carebear, It is to find holes where people are ready to fight.
Any muppet can shoot an Orca, but mostly they POS up when facing opposition. Or stay cloaked up, on the hole, effectively blueballing everything for the entire day.

Trying to bait, trick, or annoy the aware but unwilling into a fight, is just not going to be a good use of time.

This will let holes sensibly be rolled where there are a couple of cloakies on the other side who will not uncloak for anything other than an easy kill.

When there are people willing to fight, on the hole, this will be a great source of fun. And epic small group combat.

It is not meant as an easy fix for anything, or some "magic" solution, just the right tool for the job.



People who only decloak for an Orca will not decloak for a combatship of any kind ....
That beeing said, i understandyour need to close a hole with 300mil mass as critical state, which is excactly 1 Orca or 1 Battleship jumping both ways with MWD on, however you say you can't 100% know the mass of a wormhole, i can tell you if it is your static or yo uwere online when it opened, you are 100% able to know it's mass and i asume you are able to calculate mass :)
To instaclose a 2b mass hole 100% riskfree in 30 seconds you need 5 BS 1 Orca, for a 3B hole you only need 2-3 Bs OR a 2nd Orca more ....

For the blueballing issue ... well guess what we started to convo/ write in local people who allready spotted us and ask for fights, to simply save blueballing, as result we had some very nice conversations, met nice people and yes we even had a fight once without any kills as gentlemensagreement. And we haven't been ignored once yet ;)

For C5 well you have more Carebears there than in C2 space ..... :/ but you also have a lot pvp corps/allys out there ;)

You are quite right, we have adapted the use the orca to suit our needs,
But it is not really the right tool for the job.
A hammer would open a tin, but would having a can opener available be more sensible? Just a better tool. most human invention has been about seeking a better way of doing things.
We have had to create new and unusual ways of achieving goals as CCP have given us nothing, now they are listening, it may be the time to ask them for useful tools.

I do not agree that one always knows the exact mass of a wormhole, as some are clearly "fat" and some "thin". A 2bn mass wormhole is Not exactly that every time, there are always surprises, and that is a good thing for interest, whether that is intentional, or a bug, who knows but that is as it is. (Ps CCP Greyscale, please do NOT fix it!)

The question is as a wormholer, ( i believe you indicate you are,) would this ship improve your gameplay?
Or would it in some way break it? You may focus more on other roles, if so please talk to those who actually close the holes and see their opinion. I believe you will find them strongly in favour. No one Loves to use an orca for it. Doing it ten times or more a day soon gets old.( It is called ragerolling for a reasonSad)

Congrats at getting good fights with your Orca, or with other peoples, more often we just see people POSing up and waiting for natural despawn, and that is just not any use to anyone.

This ship could bring more activity to the hole, where it needs to be, doing more "stuff"Lol and less POS spinning,
And be a small but welcome improvement to wormhole life.

All I ask is that the CSM have a look at this idea and discuss it.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Meytal
Doomheim
#257 - 2014-05-21 13:25:33 UTC
Hey Greyscale, what is CCP's viewpoint of Wormhole space?

1) An increasing depth of seclusion from K-space, where the further in you go, the more dangerous is the local wildlife. Once you enter through the gates, it becomes increasingly more foreboding.

or

2) A shallow collection of unchartable systems hanging off of K-space that have little or no relation to one another with no concept of progression.

(Or maybe even something else?)


Personally, I always saw it from the first perspective, though not quite as pronounced due to the mechanics becoming widely understood over the years and the ease in which it is possible to go between C5/C6 and K-space; gameplay is still significantly different between various systems, though.

Looking at it like that, C4-K routes wouldn't really fit, nor would common C5-K and C6-K routes. I would suggest something like the following (for lengthy discussion and far off future implementation):

- C1: stays pretty much as it is now, though increase random W-space connections (two-way)
- C2: stays pretty much as it is now (more random W-space connections definitely welcomed!)
- C3: allow freighter passage in/out of suitable connected systems, increase random W-space connections (two-way). This would be how you primarily get freighters into W-space from Hisec.

- C4: bridge between C1-C3 and C5-C6, one static for each group, allow freighter passage

- C5: stays pretty much as it is now, though fewer K-space connections (two-way) and more random W-space connections (two-way)
- C6: stays pretty much as it is now, though fewer K-space connections (two-way) and more random W-space connections (two-way)

With allowance of freighters into W-space via the C3 K-space connections, there is less need for capital-class K-space connections in C5/C6 systems; they would only be required for capitals. The two segments of W-space, call them deep W-space and shallow W-space, would have the majority of random connections within their own little group.

C6 could then, later, become a bridge to new regions of space.

If you see a wormhole in K-space, the majority of the time it should be to a C1-C3 system. Those are also the systems that daytrippers can easily solo.


However, if you guys have the second viewpoint about W-space from above, then definitely increasing C4-K connections would be fitting.

My personal preference is (probably obvious) the first point of view. As a disclaimer, my corp lives in a C2/HS/C4.

But either way you do it, having 3-4 W-space connections per wormhole system (including static) on the average would be amazing for getting people together for parties in W-space.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#258 - 2014-05-21 13:30:48 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:

But, while I've got you here and can be reasonably assured you are in fact looking at a topic (much like a sighting of Bigfoot, the attention of a CCP Greyscale is rare), would you care to comment on black holes? There was a gigantic threadnaught filled with nerd rage and silly ideas on how to "fix" black holes, and things seemed to stall. Are Black Hole systems still up for review, or are we all happy to carry on as they are, whereby C1-4 are doable but C5 and C6 are just not inhabitable (farmable)?

You could even comment on the thread in the Wormholes section if that's more appropriate.


Fozzie has Black Holes on his "to make less bad" list :)

[edit] Also re the topic at large, I'm currently leaning towards just leaving C4s as they are pending a more comprehensive review in future :)
We've been discussing possible positive changes to WH connections for over a year in a WH subforum, there are several topics with many pages detailing various options and their merits. It makes me kinda sad this 'idea' suddenly surfaces from nowhere (or from lowsec) and apparently with no insight into wormholes or wormholer preferences whatsoever. WH community has been debating this over and over again, in depth, and for a very long time and apparently noone in CCP bothered to pay attention. We are consistently being ignored.

And if you want to do something with C4s, just give them second static.

SSC Brokering Service
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#259 - 2014-05-21 13:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Meytal wrote:
Hey Greyscale, what is CCP's viewpoint of Wormhole space?

1) An increasing depth of seclusion from K-space, where the further in you go, the more dangerous is the local wildlife. Once you enter through the gates, it becomes increasingly more foreboding.

or

2) A shallow collection of unchartable systems hanging off of K-space that have little or no relation to one another with no concept of progression.

(Or maybe even something else?)


Personally, I always saw it from the first perspective, though not quite as pronounced due to the mechanics becoming widely understood over the years and the ease in which it is possible to go between C5/C6 and K-space; gameplay is still significantly different between various systems, though.

Looking at it like that, C4-K routes wouldn't really fit, nor would common C5-K and C6-K routes. I would suggest something like the following (for lengthy discussion and far off future implementation):

- C1: stays pretty much as it is now, though increase random W-space connections (two-way)
- C2: stays pretty much as it is now (more random W-space connections definitely welcomed!)
- C3: allow freighter passage in/out of suitable connected systems, increase random W-space connections (two-way). This would be how you primarily get freighters into W-space from Hisec.

- C4: bridge between C1-C3 and C5-C6, one static for each group, allow freighter passage

- C5: stays pretty much as it is now, though fewer K-space connections (two-way) and more random W-space connections (two-way)
- C6: stays pretty much as it is now, though fewer K-space connections (two-way) and more random W-space connections (two-way)

With allowance of freighters into W-space via the C3 K-space connections, there is less need for capital-class K-space connections in C5/C6 systems; they would only be required for capitals. The two segments of W-space, call them deep W-space and shallow W-space, would have the majority of random connections within their own little group.

C6 could then, later, become a bridge to new regions of space.

If you see a wormhole in K-space, the majority of the time it should be to a C1-C3 system. Those are also the systems that daytrippers can easily solo.


However, if you guys have the second viewpoint about W-space from above, then definitely increasing C4-K connections would be fitting.

My personal preference is (probably obvious) the first point of view. As a disclaimer, my corp lives in a C2/HS/C4.

But either way you do it, having 3-4 W-space connections per wormhole system (including static) on the average would be amazing for getting people together for parties in W-space.



Interesting, it would certainly change the landscape, possibly to the good, possibly not. Views will vary widely.

I am more in favour of a hub hole, no KS connections at all but spawns five random wandering holes in and five fixed type/class static holes out.

With exactly the same effects as a black hole.

Possibly a superhub addition to make black holes less useless?

This would achieve all goals whilst being less disruptive.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#260 - 2014-05-21 13:35:57 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:

But, while I've got you here and can be reasonably assured you are in fact looking at a topic (much like a sighting of Bigfoot, the attention of a CCP Greyscale is rare), would you care to comment on black holes? There was a gigantic threadnaught filled with nerd rage and silly ideas on how to "fix" black holes, and things seemed to stall. Are Black Hole systems still up for review, or are we all happy to carry on as they are, whereby C1-4 are doable but C5 and C6 are just not inhabitable (farmable)?

You could even comment on the thread in the Wormholes section if that's more appropriate.


Fozzie has Black Holes on his "to make less bad" list :)

[edit] Also re the topic at large, I'm currently leaning towards just leaving C4s as they are pending a more comprehensive review in future :)
We've been discussing possible positive changes to WH connections for over a year in a WH subforum, there are several topics with many pages detailing various options and their merits. It makes me kinda sad this 'idea' suddenly surfaces from nowhere (or from lowsec) and apparently with no insight into wormholes or wormholer preferences whatsoever. WH community has been debating this over and over again, in depth, and for a very long time and apparently noone in CCP bothered to pay attention. We are consistently being ignored.

And if you want to do something with C4s, just give them second static.


We discussed things like C4 connectivity extensively in the wormhole roundtables at fanfest, and we're very interested in pursuing something in that avenue in future.

This change is happening simply because someone suggested it at Fanfest, we liked it, and it's incredibly easy to do. We don't even regard it as a "wormhole change", it's a lowsec improvement that happens to use wormhole mechanics. The things we want to do with wormholes proper are more extensive and will not be happening in Kronos or Crius; beyond that I can't say because we're focused on those two releases right now :)