Wormholes

From a C4 point of view, I absolutely would not want Capitals to come in and out, no matter how they are fit.
From a C5 point of view, My experience is a bit rusty, but this would merely increase the destructive level one could bring in.
Is that a good thing? Or just increase the opportunity to encourage PVE in the static?
It probably would not be sufficient to affect PVP results, but might encourage slightly bigger fights?
Changing the limits, so two (specific) caps can do a hole roll and not get locked out, can be popular, but lower class holes, don't have such an easily predictable, ship/hole combination, so a little unfair.
Am I right a dread can pass both ways, but add another cap and it isn't making it back?

I think the change would be mostly positive - for larger groups. There are some significant disadvantages though and those disadvantages are going to really hurt smaller groups rather than the big groups, so I'm not sure if this change is worth it. Still worth discussing the pros and cons though.

Sticking to 3 capitals through a wormhole is probably the best idea, simply because it allows smaller groups to still effectively fight with capitals without getting capital blobbed.

Advantages
- Fights would allow both sides to commit more capitals, so multiple carriers or multiple high angle gun dreads could actually become viable. At the moment from a high class perspective with the mass limits the way they are, there's going to be very few situations in which people are going to use high angle gun dreads in PvP, a similar thing could be achieved with a vindicator or 2 which has significantly less mass and isn't constricted to a siege cycle. I'm really still at a loss as to why anyone would use high angle dreads in w-space and this mass change would be a solution to that. Realistically though how many groups would actually experience the sort of situation where 2 large fleets with 4 caps each go against each other? Probably very few.

- More capitals could be seeded into the home of a target at any one time, speeding up the seeding and/or eviction process which, when citadels come out, is going to become significantly harder.

- Increase in battleships in w-space. Most people love flying battleship hulls but in larger groups it's often difficult because of mass restrictions. Higher mass on the hole would probably force most major groups to incorporate large numbers of faction battleships into the typical T3 meta. If anything the entire T3 meta might go away and entire battleship fleets could become a very realistic thing. The counterplay there would also be interesting if one side was able to drop 4 high angle gun dreads and begin to volley battleships, so more interesting setups and the subsequent counterplay to these setups is always fun. If you're connected to another group through anything that isn't a high class connection though the whole battleship fleet goes out the window.

- Many people seem to believe that static sites is the way forward for wormhole PvE, alluding that there's more risk and danger if you do this rather than locking yourself down in your home and farming. I don't agree with this in the slightest, especially when groups that support this are usually the first to crit and roll all holes in their static before farming, just like you do farming in your home, but if that was the direction CCP took with PvE, this is a great step to make it viable, allowing 2 caps into the static to actually farm static sites.

Disadvantages
- Increased time to rage roll. Instead of a dread and a battleship to roll a 3b hole, you might need 2 dreads and a battleship. This would make it harder for smaller rage rolling crews or smaller corps who want to frequently roll. Not a major thing though, just a slightly longer roll time.

- Smaller groups will potentially be less interested in fielding capitals in the first place if they know they can get dropped on by more than they have available. Some groups would really struggle to find 4 capital pilots with caps ready to go.

- Prevalence of null groups using these high mass connections to get massive fleets through. For example, if you increased the mass on a H296 connection to 5B (theoretical number there), you would also have to increase the mass on a Z142 to 5b, otherwise you would jump your 5 caps out your H296 to seed a target and not all of them would get out to null, from which they would move into another wormhole. With the increased mass to 5b larger null fleets would be able to make it through and back chains. Having said that I don't think it's a big deal, 3b is more than enough as it is now for a large null fleet to make it through and it's not something that I've seen often.

So yeah, overall I think it's negative. It's definitely a buff to larger groups though, I see very few advantages in the change for smaller groups.

Instead of breaking the balance that is WH mass, tweak capital ship mass numbers instead, it would be less hastle and less people would complain.
Force auxiliarys also shouldnt have more mass than carriers do right now.

Total Mass should stay the same, so 3 Bill. The jumpable mass ie 1.35 bill mass doesn't really matter as long as the total mass stays the same and supers and titans can not use wormholes.

3 Bill Jump mass with a 3 Bill Total Mass.......

Higs Dreads for rolling?

Ok make it 1.5 Bill Jump mas.

how about staying on subject?

Given actual everyone runs shield tanked capitals atm, even on their archons, how exactly would this shake up the meta?
I assume adding plates, and other things, is an attempt to change this.
Realistically the meta will change anyway given there's a large scale rebalance for caps coming but as it is now, armour caps are useful more or less only for PVE.


yes, im sure that would be nice for the largest WH blob group...

So Low-Class would benefit quite nicely from it then ey?!

I totally agree!

Good Statement

I honestly don't know if this is meant to be funny or just ironically stupid.

Are you high son?