Wormholes

Having done it more times than you have or likely ever will... Yes that's exactly why I floated the thought of "Warp to 0 if you control your side, but off if you don't"

You have to be close enough to Bookmark the silly thing for people to warp to, if you're the aggressor, having your prober at 0 on the WH would take an extra 5-10 seconds. If you have no intention of being present and lockable in space on either side then there should be a penalty and I agree with CCP that its a necessary thing to address.

I actually would think it would be a GOOD thing if less risk-free farming took place in WH space, myself and 3 others made ~1trillion ISK in a C5 in the first year WHs were in the game. I love the idea of ISK being worth more, and Nanoribbons being a more worthwhile thing again. I honestly think it was too easy, and the few times fights ensued we actually made friends with the people who tried to roll us. Its actually a big part of how VoC got formed, which is one of the best times I ever had playing eve ^_^

People are WAY too risk adverse in this game, you don't have to ask anyone's permission to be anywhere.

This means that there will be no to less rolling and no one is going to commit caps, less epic wh fights. Way less content in W-Space. Not being able to figure out logistics. Not rolling in to others. Nothing will be happening. It will be deserted. The only good systems will be the one with high sec statics.

Terrible idea. How am i supposed to close wormholes in my 0.0 system? With dozen of BS?

Coupled with new wormholes for frig sized ships it looks like one more step toward making life of big ships pilots worse which in opinion worse thing about eve. You need more skill points, your ship costs more and you get more and more pain you-know-where.

This is a compromise that I can deal with. The primary goal of the change, at least how I understand it, is to ensure that ships do not land in the activation range of the wormhole. Reducing the activation range and commensurately reducing the range and mass factor for the landing locations would work, if there is a desire for caps to land within remote repair and/or capacitor transfer range of each other. I'm not sure if that last part is explicitly being discouraged as the intent of the design or is just a side effect.

You say this as if we don't all already deal with fuel logistics issues.......we have no outposts. We all live in POSes. Every last one of us. Bringing fuel in is a life requirement, not a nice to have.


That said, F moon mining in wspace.

I've thought this out a bit more, and here's two options for how it could be implemented:

Option A) Exit point is 50-200 KM from the entrance point. Perhaps it has some sort of graphical point, or maybe it doesn't, and the other side just has to estimate. It could be interesting if the spawn in area was in one place, but spread out over about 20 km. I would say the larger/higher class holes should have an exit far enough away to warp directly back to the hole, making rolling fairly easy as long as you aren't interfered with. However, C1 holes and the like, might land you closer, or perhaps lower total mass holes land you closer. Coming out 70 km from the hole would be a bad thing for a lot of ships, though cloakies would obviously thrive in this setting.

Option B) Entrance and exit are off grid from each other, and have to be scanned down separately. This means a lot more scanning, a lot more warping, and possibly quite a bit more danger. When you go all in, there is no slowboating your fleet back to the hole, you are all in, you have committed, every time. This would make the more meek less likely to fight, or would change the manner of fights to be more kiting heavy, but it could be pretty awesome, very movement heavy.

Scrap this idea.
Reasons have been posted so many times allready.

I'd agree that most people don't post, but not always because they like the changes. Possibly because they perceive that player feedback has little effect on changes. Or any other reason. Perhaps because they don't have time to post. It's really hard to pin down the motivations of someone who remains silent.

However, threadnoughts entail high participation. And for the WH forum, this is a massive threadnought. The last one regarding this topic was capped at sub-40 pages only because of the dev blog, and only within a single day. Combining the two, we are now approaching 50 pages of feedback. You could accurately say that players are vocal about this issue more than almost any others in j-scape.

The facts suggest that the players do care. The opposite of what you are suggesting.

No -- I'm acutely aware of fuel logistics difficulties in wormhole space. I was suggesting that magnifying those difficulties by multiplying the number of starbases you have to manage would lead to additional intentional mass exhaustion, undermining the assertion that adding additional revenue streams in this manner would somehow reduce or eliminate the need for the mass exhaustion in the first place, when it clearly wouldn't on account of the additional logistics workload, and the fact that adding the revenue stream would not somehow obviate the desire to make MORE money by running WH sites.

(explaining the joke is a thing I am doing a lot today)

Whlie I think a bell curve (small and large things appear close to the hole, medium things spawn far away) would literally fix every problem and make things like skirmishing possible.

Here's some numbers for rage rolling.

Ping Interceptor:
35 seconds for ceptor to burn the ping (but can jump in when orca and battleship do)
60 seconds for dread to warp off and warp back.

Nanofiber MWD dread:
64-80 seconds depending on distance.

For rage rolling this only slows us down, it doesn't make the caps any less safe, since the system will be scouted.

As for smaller groups? Well their biggest advantage of bringing a triage archon has just been smashed to pieces. As if leaving the force-field in your cap wasn't scary enough.