Wormholes

Will quote myself from earlier in post.



The numbers 6 and 9 its a huge differance between. Keep em at 8 in C5 space and let it be 9 in C6.
But what really needs to be adressed is the respawn of sites in C6 space. How often do C6 inhabbitants not have sites to run?
In C5 space we can have 0 for a long time and are lucky if we get 5+ active sites if we run sites/someone triggers them.

Am I misstaken about C6 residents always having sites to do? Can someone living in one please comment :)

I'll attually try and get some proper numbers on this rather than it be very subjective with "ooh i think this" or "so and so says that"

I agree with you in principle, but as soon as you take away ISK from capital anoms and generally push people into doing more anoms in statics, there wont be enough for everyone to go around and with a goal of more people in WH they will run dry very quickly. All I am saying is there needs to be a balance between number of available anoms and people wanting to run them. I am not saying there needs to be some silly amount like you get in sov null for example but you can't expect people fight over PVE content all the time, if there wont be enough ISK in WHs you will find yourself back at the beginning with people leaving WH, as with everything else there needs to be a balance and my suggestion might be one way of balancing things, not saying there aren't better ways of balancing it I will just hate to see people leaving AGAIN because someone has thought changes they are doing are great and not taking any feedback and looking at other ways of resolving things.
Imagine for example ESS kind of structure that once deployed for more than 24h increases spawn of your anoms, given low ehp of that structure if you attack it in someone home system you will be asking for trouble, and trouble is what a lot of people are after in WHs, btw this is just one example and not a very good one at that, but I hope you get what I mean.
We both want the same (more content) but my worry is that your way without any additional changes might push people out rather than bring in.

Wall of text, sorry for that, hope it makes sense.

Cheers

There is pretty much an infinite number of anoms to run right now, it is called your w-spacestatic. Too few there, reroll. Pretty much like everyone does it who isn´t living solo in a c3/4 or in a small group in a C5/6.

So here we go again. If you're a 100+ man wh corp it becomes easier to support your bloated numbers (and even increase them) by doubling your isk potential and if you're a smaller outfit that doesn't have 100 guys or doesn't have a C5 or C6 static then it's a kick in the junk.

This is pretty self serving, and I'll just ask everyone to look at alliance growth in null and the self serving changes that came about there and the mess it made. How about just Fooking back off on changes that kick smaller wh outfits in the junk. Hyperion did that already.

It's pretty clear to me that the motive for doubling isk potential for c5/c6 wh that have c5c6 statics is to allow more grazing by larger herds. I don't think that is in line with the fundamental premise of wh space. If you can't generate enough isk to feed your wh herd, then your wh herd is too big. Are you trying to get the wh entity list down to 4 corps of 200 pilots that grope around 2,500 systems complaining there is no one to fight?

Here's my fear with your proposed change to escallations.

I'm in a small wh corp that covers only one TZ. It's the US tz, so the furthest away from down time. I'm at work right now. NOHO or any other larger group can come in my wh burn through any existing anoms and get the massive 350 mil isk loot fairy cans roll out and leave me an empty wh.

I get home from work a few hours later and it's just empty. So what the proposed escallation changes will do is empty my bucket every day while I'm at work AND it will allow NOHO to rage roll, pick systems clean and move on. Here's the biggest part of that fear. ISBoxer can vacuum up anoms and get 350 mil isk cans at an alarming rate. That's just bad for wh.

Instead of moon goo, the new mega isk meta will be large wh corps rage rolling c5s and ISBoxing sleeper sites. The only PLUS to your proposed changes would be that you vastly increase the income potential for large wh groups like NOHO that have c5 statics. So the new norm will be a few large wh corps vacuuming and even more smaller guys leaving.

Corbex has been cool enough to invite me on comms to give him my point of view, which I will do, but I'd prefer to get it down on pixels also for all to see. I do appreciate the comms invite. (read this as I like corbex, I like his work and enthusiasm, I do not like this idea)

I'm not looking for sympathy. I'm just pointing out that I don't like the idea of cutting the icome potential of one set of wh (c5 w/ c1 through c4 statics) and increasing the icome potential of another set a wh (c5 and c6 with c5 and c6 static).

I'm not asking for the game to be changed to fit my needs. I'm asking that you don't take a dump on my play style to buff yours.

A bit of background. I like being in a small wh corp. I don't have a desire to be in a 100 man wh corp. To that end we are in a c5 w/ a low class static. We chose it because we desire to run cap escallations, but we don't desire to rage roll into larger corps that we can't field enough to pvp with. We made distinct choices based on our desired play style. We didn't cry foul or try to change the game to fit our needs. We adapted to what is best for what we want to do.

The last wh changes w/ the mass/range thing put a decent size dent in our operations. Personally it sux, but we're making do. I can work around mass/range with scouting and just plain nutting up and rolling a risky wh. I accept that.

I can't work around my time zone and I can't quit my job. (OK, I can, but my wife is really hot AND sweet, so I'm not tossing her to the curb in favor of better wh living). So, when you potentially erase my income potential (which supports my ability to live in a wh) just to increase it for another style of play.... well, my fur is rubbed the wrong way on this one.

As far as c2 doing pve in your static - in the beginning of wh a C2 w/ a C4 static was the best isk/time (because you could roll it and farm new wh all day long). It out isked cap escallations over the course of a day (quad esc being a one shot willy based on downtime)

This proposed change will make anything w/ a C5 static and enough guys to strip sites quickly the BY FAR hands down winner over anything else in eve.

You see the problem is the number of anomalies currently is far from being infinite, very often you will find systems with none or less then a handful and remember that its still before any changes are made with changes forcing people to farm statics and them still having same number of anomalies, you will run out of them, very, very quick.
Might be wrong but for me it looks this way.

The amount of sites you can capitally escalate in a C6 can be averaged at around 10. And that is with running them everyday. With 650m average loot per site (lowballing). And running them everyday. That's some mad $$$.

On the other hand in a C5 if you run sites everyday the average you have is around 1 or 2 (so some days you have 4, then when you complete them next days you have nothing until something respawns).

Those rates were pre-hyperion though, so its probably even worse in C5 now.

why would these rates have changed after hyperion?