These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Idea for new wh

First post
Author
Tim Nering
R3d Fire
#41 - 2015-07-08 22:49:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tim Nering
---the comment that this was in response to no longer exists---
i dont think this is overthinking. the biggest fundamental difference from low class to high class is the use of capitals. If i wanted to live in low class space i would or better yet id prob be in pospy or something. Cool

Sure stupid ppl do stupid things and think its a good idea to rat in a c1 using an archon.... but im just going to pretend i never saw that.

Stop Caring Start Fragging! Join R3D Fire Today!

Bleedingthrough
#42 - 2015-07-08 23:41:41 UTC
A more elegant solution could be to change how the mass of a ship affects WHs. This could be done by introducing effective mass factors as a ship-specific property that impacts how the mass of a ship degrades WHs.

Getting these factors right could not only limit power projection via Wh space and blobbing in WH space but also change the meta in WH space. For instance, these factors could be significantly higher for lower mass ships and roughly *1 for capital ships.
O'nira
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-07-09 00:14:49 UTC
No, Frig Holes are already there for this sort of stuff and no one uses them.


1b holes already feel extremely restricting, can't even imagine what a half a bill hole will feel like.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#44 - 2015-07-09 00:30:22 UTC
You know it's bad when several of your friends, who are in nullsec groups, message you with the basic tone of 'I heard the news. My condolences. Get out while you can, we've got a spot for you.' Especially when they know I love wspace.

Why does it appear to be the CCP MO to nerf, with broad sweeping strokes, gameplay when they clearly don't realize MOST of the downstream effects those changes will cause.

Further reducing our abilities to take fights through null connected chains and further reducing our abilities to deploy capital ships in combat through null connected chains results in less for us to do. This has a deleterious affect on player retention simply by way of reducing the various methods of playing the game.

It's somewhat staggering to be quite honest.

I'm right behind you

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#45 - 2015-07-09 01:18:56 UTC
Mass limit 300,000t = 110 bombers each way.

or 80 Svipuls

Gents, blobs will fit through anything they can. Putting in mass-restricted wormholes of any kind will make Keskora Yaari feel like a genius and let him brag around the fire in the Wormholers Exclusive No Goonbexx Gentleman's Lodge, but won't stop anything. People will bring 150-man sniper Hecate fleets through wormholes if they have to.

replacing Z142's with Z060's isn't the solution. it's better than more frig holes, but it doesn't address the issues.

I also really wonder what CCP's brains are on. They complain that S199's are too prevalent and too hard to collapse. That's a staggering exposition of lack of knowledge and experience. S199's are rarer than a two sentence Chance Ravinne post, or a Wingspan pilot taking a fight; they are not any harder to crush than a n432 or K162 to C5s.

If anything, S199's could use their mass reduction to being a Z060, and if you want more small-mass limit wormholes, put them in from null to null and null to low and low to low.

Oh, and can C4's get their full-sized transients to nullsec and lowsec? Pretty please?
Keskora Yaari
POS Party
Ember Sands
#46 - 2015-07-09 01:57:16 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:


replacing Z142's with Z060's isn't the solution. it's better than more frig holes, but it doesn't address the issues.




As i have said in previous posts.... This idea isn't meant to replace anything. Z142s will continue to exist with their own spawn rates and their own frequency. This is an idea for a completely new type of wormhole that wouldn't have any relation to current wormhole spawn rates.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#47 - 2015-07-09 04:14:20 UTC
Regardless of how people feel about the reduction of the current holes, adding these proposed low mass holes seems like a giant waste of time that won't do anything useful for the game (much like frig holes).

Also, if adding these is fine, then why remove the old holes? Makes no sense AT ALL...

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-07-09 05:12:28 UTC
First of all i don't like the changes to wormhole spawns.

This proposal would help some w-space entities to still do small null roams.
I would say 2 bs trough(one back and forth) and 10-15 cruisers back and forth would give us the best options.
As an addition(never to be used replacing te other ones!!!!!!!!!!) it would help the w-space corps that do small roams.
Best not to limit them to c5/c6 .

It does not help with the loss of targets in wh's because the nullbears won't be using these to move fleets and capitals we could catch.
It does not help with the loss of options for capital ships.



No local in null sec would fix everything!

GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#49 - 2015-07-09 05:59:52 UTC
TurboX3 wrote:
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...


no static k space exits c5,c6 please. unless only black holes get them..

you see what i did there!
Iyokus Patrouette
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-07-09 06:04:09 UTC
I don't know... Static holes, Wandering holes, Frig holes, Drifter holes. . . . . Thera. Do we really need more types of wormholes? I feel like it's just another set of numbers and colours to identify to take us to essentially all the same places we can already get to with our existing wormholes.

---- Advocate for the initiation of purple coloured wormholes----

ChrisLCTR
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#51 - 2015-07-09 06:22:44 UTC
I'm starting to think the only purpose of asking what we think about new 'features' is to figure out how much resistance you would get out of this community. "Lets see, do we have 20 pages of solid blocks of salt?? We do?!?!" Push that into the next expansion!"

If there is a strong resistance to it, CCP will implement it. Any ideas that WH residents think will stifle our gameplay, they will think is a good idea. Great for game dynamics.

You're going to find that a majority of the sub won't agree with the changes, and yet they will be implemented anyway. I don't really understand the point in asking for feedback anymore.

Whatever CCP. We're still going to figure out ways to dumpster everything. You keep your s*** coming.
Luft Reich
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#52 - 2015-07-09 06:36:21 UTC
So you are trying to screw us, but trying to distract us with these great new low mass wormholes that we can use to explore more of space because we all LOVE our current low mass wormhole friends.

Please.....

ISD Cyberdyne liked your forum post

Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2015-07-09 07:34:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Nah stick it!

Improve the QFG for the null sec people and give wormholers the ability to create new unstable wormholes as part of the structure revamp.

I'm tired of the little tweaks and ballsing up of mechanics in place of something cool to do/build.
Lucius Kalari
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2015-07-09 10:23:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucius Kalari
I think if these new proposed wormholes had the same stats as a E175, it would be perfect. 2 bil hole, no cap entry, big enough fleet to take out, and if people are worried about closing them with battleships, why not just have as a regen hole?
Winthorp
#55 - 2015-07-09 10:38:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
I find it absurd that this is even an idea we are entertaining enough to present.

Wasn't the whole idea we got frig holes to increase connections between WH's and null/k-space. Frig holes are such a waste of time why would we want more low mass WH's?

I also don't think the null nerf will be as much of an issue as it has been made out to be.

I would love to see the figures on usage stats of frig Wh's before we go asking CCP for more useless crap tbh.

EDIT: Also why would you even want a WH with less mass to null????? Mostly null roams go like this - take a few guys, find content yell for more lads to help out (Just like those null guys are cynoing in more help). Wouldn't lower mass holes just tilt this even more to the favor of null residents. Why do you want to gimp yourselves further and why would you care that null blobs are moving through your chain, You should be ******* ecstatic about them using your chain.
Samantha Elroy
Overload This
Escalation Theory
#56 - 2015-07-09 10:48:53 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Wouldnt it be better if some CSM explained to CCP what a ****** idea removing c5-ns holes is, instead of us trying to come up with some not totally **** replacement?

DeathForMeh
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-07-09 12:42:44 UTC
The amount of C4's in our chains is massive after they obtained dual static but (unlikely any other wh space) they are lacking kspace connection other than frig null... My proposal is to load them up with wandering 0.0>C4 C4>0.0 connections 2 bill max mass 300kt max jumpable, 24 h life - that would be my slight suggestion for new wormhole type under Kes idea. Also increase the spawn rate of C248 and U319 to make C6 space a little more interesting.
TurboX3
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#58 - 2015-07-09 13:17:42 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
I find it absurd that this is even an idea we are entertaining enough to present.

Wasn't the whole idea we got frig holes to increase connections between WH's and null/k-space. Frig holes are such a waste of time why would we want more low mass WH's?

I also don't think the null nerf will be as much of an issue as it has been made out to be.

I would love to see the figures on usage stats of frig Wh's before we go asking CCP for more useless crap tbh.

EDIT: Also why would you even want a WH with less mass to null????? Mostly null roams go like this - take a few guys, find content yell for more lads to help out (Just like those null guys are cynoing in more help). Wouldn't lower mass holes just tilt this even more to the favor of null residents. Why do you want to gimp yourselves further and why would you care that null blobs are moving through your chain, You should be ******* ecstatic about them using your chain.


This man makes sense.....
We need the frig null-sec wh's removed full stop.
Null exits provide content for both w-space residents if we use them or nullbears... We should all be ******* ecstatic!!
TurboX3
Pulling The Plug
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#59 - 2015-07-09 13:20:12 UTC
ChrisLCTR wrote:


If there is a strong resistance to it, CCP will implement it. Any ideas that WH residents think will stifle our gameplay, they will think is a good idea. Great for game dynamics.

You're going to find that a majority of the sub won't agree with the changes, and yet they will be implemented anyway. I don't really understand the point in asking for feedback anymore.



Goonbexx - Can you please comment on this cos Chris is right CCP will implement it anyways & us wormholers meant to have a voice? clearly not...
Tim Nering
R3d Fire
#60 - 2015-07-09 18:33:27 UTC
i agree with winthorp. I don't buy that nullsecers using wormhole chains is a bad thing. For wormholers it is a really good thing. It is potential content for us! And as far as im concerned if they are using them to "expand their power range" they deserve it! they find a random wormhole scan it all down, get a capital or a fleet through there. They put the work in to achieve this. They arent rage rolling null holes for where they need to go. they are just using wormhole chains. its smart imo.

they took the risk why shouldn't they get the reward?!?!

let them keep coming through wormholes.

Stop Caring Start Fragging! Join R3D Fire Today!