These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Idea for new wh

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-07-08 16:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: corbexx
With the dev blog out here

An idea's been brought forward for a new wh one with a low total mass that would go C5 and C6 to null and null to C5 and C6.

These could potentially be added in greater numbers than the ones lost in the dev blog. so you would actually get more connections to and from null than you have at present.

Inital numbers i'm thinking of is something like total mass 400 - 500 and max mass 300 and 24 hour life time.

Credit for the inital idea should go to Keskora Yaari. Moans might as well go to me.

feel free to comment.

“Note: this new wh idea is NOT a replacement for existing z142 connections”

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
TurboX3
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#2 - 2015-07-08 16:15:02 UTC  |  Edited by: TurboX3
OMG I just wrote this idea on this forum post --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=432168&p=4

I do believe a C5 or C6 should have a static Null !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Big smile
It would create more content for us wormhole living anal probers!
GoonBexx, thanks for posting on here.

Can I say VERY GAY; members on CSM agree with "A significant decrease in the spawn rate of direct Nullsec to Nullsec wormhole connections "...
I am outraged by this decision (as a betting man I am sure Bob is pissed too) is the CSM full of carebears to try & limit power projection...
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#3 - 2015-07-08 16:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Kes is a good gal.

Are we talking about a mass cap (like no more than a battleship size), or a mass limit (15 t3 and its dead)?

Edit (aah you put the numbers in).

Yaay!!!!
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#4 - 2015-07-08 16:39:32 UTC
<3 Phoenix


Yeah the idea is that it has the same jump restrictions as your standard c2/c3/c4 wormhole but it has very little total mass. So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Ideally it would work to increase roams and day tripping but it would keep people from using it as a bridge between systems. Also, having to make a more tactical decisions about what jumps through would make for some potentially interesting engagements.
I'll yolo t1 battleships all day if it means fun fights :)
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5 - 2015-07-08 16:43:00 UTC
....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.


NO ... in fact HELL NO



It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#6 - 2015-07-08 16:50:13 UTC
Keskora Yaari wrote:
<3 Phoenix


Yeah the idea is that it has the same jump restrictions as your standard c2/c3/c4 wormhole but it has very little total mass. So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Ideally it would work to increase roams and day tripping but it would keep people from using it as a bridge between systems. Also, having to make a more tactical decisions about what jumps through would make for some potentially interesting engagements.
I'll yolo t1 battleships all day if it means fun fights :)



With 1 or 2 Battleships being able to collapse the connection it may be worth while sharing an account to keep a watch just to make sure the WH stays in your region of space

you know just in case it looks like you may be open for a fight and need to get enough pilots in to blob the attackers.....
Quiggle Queue
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-07-08 16:51:50 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:




It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer



Except that he just stated the idea came from Keskora Yaari, who is a wormholer :)
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-07-08 16:52:55 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Keskora Yaari wrote:
<3 Phoenix


Yeah the idea is that it has the same jump restrictions as your standard c2/c3/c4 wormhole but it has very little total mass. So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Ideally it would work to increase roams and day tripping but it would keep people from using it as a bridge between systems. Also, having to make a more tactical decisions about what jumps through would make for some potentially interesting engagements.
I'll yolo t1 battleships all day if it means fun fights :)



With 1 or 2 Battleships being able to collapse the connection it may be worth while sharing an account to keep a watch just to make sure the WH stays in your region of space

you know just in case it looks like you may be open for a fight and need to get enough pilots in to blob the attackers.....


ok just for you we'll make it no bs, there happy it would be much harder to collapse then. what about regenative mass want that on as well?

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#9 - 2015-07-08 16:52:56 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.


NO ... in fact HELL NO



It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer




These aren't statics - they would be wandering wormholes. If they collapse they are gone and another one does not spawn
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#10 - 2015-07-08 16:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Iowa Banshee wrote:
....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.


NO ... in fact HELL NO



It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer


So your concern is that a nullsec group will obtain the ability to go pve in a c5 and c6?

They can't fit a dread, there pve ships will be marauders or t3's, they can gas mine. They can't do escalations.

Considering the amount of dead c6 space there is and the virtual non-existence of null people running wormhole sites vs carrier ratting....

Maybe I'm wrong and there are nullsec groups that jump at the idea of nomadding in c5 and c6 space to gain dank ISk vs ratting anoms in stationed systems with emergency cyno Alts and local for 8 hours.

An issue you run into with the no battleship fit is.. If we're killing a heavier asset, we would bring a bhaalgorn.

The difference is a c1 sized wormhole vs a c2 sized wormhole.

Yaay!!!!
Quiggle Queue
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2015-07-08 16:55:02 UTC
These kind of ideas are what will keep wormhole space, and the rest of the universe more dynamic and ever changing. Roaming connections are awesome in general.
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#12 - 2015-07-08 16:58:12 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.


NO ... in fact HELL NO



It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer


So your concern is that a nullsec group will obtain the ability to go pve in a c5 and c6?

They can't fit a dread, there pve ships will be marauders or t3's, they can gas mine. They can't do escalations.

Considering the amount of dead c6 space there is and the virtual non-existence of null people running wormhole sites vs carrier ratting....

Maybe I'm wrong and there are nullsec groups that jump at the idea of nomadding in c5 and c6 space to gain dank ISk vs ratting anoms in stationed systems with emergency cyno Alts and local for 8 hours.

I'm sure i am missing the exact concern. If you can spell it out it would help us a bit better.



i think they are thinking that these new wormholes would be statics to a c5/c6. So if they move into one to farm with dreads/carriers they can repeatedly roll it to get the best NS connection. But these are not statics - they are wandering so if you roll one you would just have to hope that another spawns. With that in mind I don't think his argument really works.
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#13 - 2015-07-08 17:05:54 UTC
Keskora Yaari wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.


NO ... in fact HELL NO



It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer


So your concern is that a nullsec group will obtain the ability to go pve in a c5 and c6?

They can't fit a dread, there pve ships will be marauders or t3's, they can gas mine. They can't do escalations.

Considering the amount of dead c6 space there is and the virtual non-existence of null people running wormhole sites vs carrier ratting....

Maybe I'm wrong and there are nullsec groups that jump at the idea of nomadding in c5 and c6 space to gain dank ISk vs ratting anoms in stationed systems with emergency cyno Alts and local for 8 hours.

I'm sure i am missing the exact concern. If you can spell it out it would help us a bit better.



i think they are thinking that these new wormholes would be statics to a c5/c6. So if they move into one to farm with dreads/carriers they can repeatedly roll it to get the best NS connection. But these are not statics - they are wandering so if you roll one you would just have to hope that another spawns. With that in mind I don't think his argument really works.


You are right I did think more statics were being proposed -- which would be bad
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#14 - 2015-07-08 17:10:06 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:


You are right I did think more statics were being proposed -- which would be bad




Agreed! That would be horrible haha
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2015-07-08 17:16:37 UTC
Keskora Yaari wrote:
So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses.
Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.

SSC Brokering Service
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#16 - 2015-07-08 17:35:01 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.



How many do you think would be a good amount? Enough to be able to take fights but not so many that you can blob or move an entire corp worth of people
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2015-07-08 17:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Axloth Okiah
Keskora Yaari wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.


How many do you think would be a good amount? Enough to be able to take fights but not so many that you can blob or move an entire corp worth of people
Thats a great a question and I dont have a good answer. It varies too much and theres an overlap in numbers of people between killing ratting carriers and moving blobs around. Not to mention the increased hassle of moving caps. Or smaller chance of us helping each other out against nullbears.

And, tbh, as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with people using wormholes to move their blobs around. Do any wormholers have issues with nullsec holes being able to carry a blob?

Whatever the end result (fewer holes or smaller holes), we are going to end up with fewer opportunities to kill things in null (again). So yeah... op success.

SSC Brokering Service
MooMooDachshundCow
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2015-07-08 18:04:17 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Keskora Yaari wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.


How many do you think would be a good amount? Enough to be able to take fights but not so many that you can blob or move an entire corp worth of people
Thats a great a question and I dont have a good answer. It varies too much and theres an overlap in numbers of people between killing ratting carriers and moving blobs around. Not to mention the increased hassle of moving caps. Or smaller chance of us helping each other out against nullbears.

And, tbh, as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with people using wormholes to move their blobs around. Do any wormholers have issues with nullsec holes being able to carry a blob?

Whatever the end result (fewer holes or smaller holes), we are going to end up with fewer opportunities to kill things in null (again). So yeah... op success.


Having more connections to null from WH space is not going to lead to fewer opportunities, that's ridiculous. The mass restrictions are perhaps a bit low, but would be suitable for small gang roams. If you have more than 20 cruisers are you still a small gang? Maybe by null standards. That is of course a very low number, but perhaps operations launched from one of these holes would increase inter-corp cooperation since you'd need another connection to bring more dudes, maybe you'd batphone?

I guess the question is "What's enough mass to be able to take fights?".

Yeah, well, it's just like my opinion, man.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#19 - 2015-07-08 18:15:13 UTC
Replacing the lost z142s/n432s with E545s (2 bil/300 max jump and 24hr) or k346/h900 (3 bil/300/24hr) would help. Even a z060 (1 bil/20 max/24 hr) would be better than losing a door, however it would be nice to have more reasons to fly battleships rather than fewer.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2015-07-08 18:20:51 UTC
MooMooDachshundCow wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:

Whatever the end result (fewer holes or smaller holes), we are going to end up with fewer opportunities to kill things in null (again). So yeah... op success.


Having more connections to null from WH space is not going to lead to fewer opportunities, that's ridiculous. The mass restrictions are perhaps a bit low, but would be suitable for small gang roams. If you have more than 20 cruisers are you still a small gang? Maybe by null standards. That is of course a very low number, but perhaps operations launched from one of these holes would increase inter-corp cooperation since you'd need another connection to bring more dudes, maybe you'd batphone?

I guess the question is "What's enough mass to be able to take fights?".
As it stands now, they are removing some connections to null. Per corbexx, we "might" get some smaller, limited-mass holes back. Maybe, perhaps, who knows, we'll see. So right now and for foreseeable future, we are losing opportunities to kill stuff.

How much is enough? That depends. You dont need much to kill afk ishtar. You need quite a bit more to kill a super + support. Either way, it sucks to be us.

SSC Brokering Service
123Next pageLast page