These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Harness the wormhole
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
manus
Subhypersonics
#1 - 2017-05-02 14:21:36 UTC
What if players could build a structure around a wormhole that captured the rift and was able to keep it open indefinitely. We would have player made stargates all of a sudden. Destructible too!

Remember how governments are fighting for control over a single tiny island, not for the island, but for rights to the shipping route that passes through it. Im talking about Hans Island and the dispute between Denmark and Canada. With player made stargates and more or less permanent highways through wormsec, there would be something additional to fight over. Lets do this!
Cade Windstalker
#2 - 2017-05-02 14:27:36 UTC
I would recommend you learn more about wormhole mechanics for why this is a bad idea, wouldn't work, and has a good chance of seriously breaking some game elements.

Just for a start there are a finite number of wormhole connections in the game. When one despawns it respawns elsewhere.

On top of that the mass limits are a major factor in W-space, so the ability to lock one open would basically break gameplay there massively.

They can also open at a distance normally unworkable by stargate, so a dedicated group like, say, PL or NC could start capturing Null wormholes near their staging and suddenly they can project force everywhere again.

Oh and CCP have already said that player stargates are going to be the replacement for jump bridges, so there's that too.
manus
Subhypersonics
#3 - 2017-05-02 14:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: manus
This will disrupt the game a bit. Yes. But thats excactly what we need. Its excactly what we need. have you seen the player statistics recentlly? The trend has been down for a long time. Its time to shake things up. It has the potential to disrupt many areas of play. Its excactly what is needed. Besides if you dont like someone trying to build a stargate, you just pay them a visit. You ask them to stop. And if they dont, well they gonna hear from your fleet of dreadnoughts and what not.
Vokan Narkar
Doomheim
#4 - 2017-05-02 14:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Vokan Narkar
As an "end game" content I like this idea - but it has to be extremely difficult and expensive to do so its done only once per a wek/month for a good reason not every day.
perseus skye
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2017-05-02 15:22:06 UTC
Vokan Narkar wrote:
As an "end game" content I like this idea - but it has to be extremely difficult and expensive to do so its done only once per a wek/month for a good reason not every day.


I disagree as not all of us are after end game content and if implemented would prefer a simple trained module such as a bubble etc ...the thought of giving the elites more power is frightening
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#6 - 2017-05-02 16:23:56 UTC
Wormhole-stabilizer idea number 4257....


It's a bad idea and would be abused to hell and back.


No

Wormholer for life.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2017-05-02 16:28:24 UTC
Vokan Narkar wrote:
As an "end game" content I like this idea - but it has to be extremely difficult and expensive to do so its done only once per a wek/month for a good reason not every day.


"Expensive" according to who?

The 5 man corp that likes to PVP, or the 5,000 man corp that can easily drop a trillion isk on something worthwhile?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2017-05-02 18:05:15 UTC
manus wrote:
This will disrupt the game a bit. Yes. But thats excactly what we need. Its excactly what we need. have you seen the player statistics recentlly? The trend has been down for a long time. Its time to shake things up. It has the potential to disrupt many areas of play. Its excactly what is needed. Besides if you dont like someone trying to build a stargate, you just pay them a visit. You ask them to stop. And if they dont, well they gonna hear from your fleet of dreadnoughts and what not.


Can you tell me why we 'need' what is essentially a single jump bridge between delve and deklein, when people spent years screaming that a jump bridge network from delve to deklein was a bad thing?
Marika Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#9 - 2017-05-02 18:08:24 UTC
Vokan Narkar wrote:
As an "end game" content I like this idea - but it has to be extremely difficult and expensive to do so its done only once per a wek/month for a good reason not every day.


Titans were meant to be scarce too...
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#10 - 2017-05-02 18:14:59 UTC
End-Game....New Eden has yet to invade Jove space for it to be an end-game.

It should more like expanding New Eden with new content revolving around pirates growing odd new pirates in the Clone Bays that have super skills already built into their Cloning.
Dark Lord Trump
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#11 - 2017-05-02 19:01:34 UTC
manus wrote:
This will disrupt the game a bit. Yes. But thats excactly what we need. Its excactly what we need. have you seen the player statistics recentlly? The trend has been down for a long time. Its time to shake things up. It has the potential to disrupt many areas of play. Its excactly what is needed. Besides if you dont like someone trying to build a stargate, you just pay them a visit. You ask them to stop. And if they dont, well they gonna hear from your fleet of dreadnoughts and what not.

I fail to see how shaking things up in wormhole space by allowing Hard Knocks to roflstomp you with their capital fleet since they can now ignore mass/time limits will improve player count.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2017-05-02 20:32:17 UTC
manus wrote:
What if players could build a structure around a wormhole that captured the rift and was able to keep it open indefinitely. We would have player made stargates all of a sudden. Destructible too!

Remember how governments are fighting for control over a single tiny island, not for the island, but for rights to the shipping route that passes through it. Im talking about Hans Island and the dispute between Denmark and Canada. With player made stargates and more or less permanent highways through wormsec, there would be something additional to fight over. Lets do this!


Please no, wormhole life would be totally wrecked by this, I won't go over all the reasons here, but look up wormhole stabiliser, lots there to see why.

Also this would effectively be avoiding completely the jump fatigue changes that took place in null and LS, they would be very simple to exploit.

Sorry, one of those ideas that sounds nice, until one sees the bill.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#13 - 2017-05-02 21:54:00 UTC
Vokan Narkar wrote:
As an "end game" content I like this idea - but it has to be extremely difficult and expensive to do so its done only once per a wek/month for a good reason not every day.


like titans? Oops.

Unstable worm holes are a pretty important thing for wormhole space. It's what makes logistics hard and keeps wh fleets relatively small.

Stable connections means multi-system homes that are easily supplied and probably defended by tons of caps. The big wh players dominate all the c6's and can easily respond to attacks against any of them, and push out anyone who tries to rat in them. Basically all the problems with null sec, you want to bring to wh's...

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Cade Windstalker
#14 - 2017-05-02 23:02:37 UTC
manus wrote:
This will disrupt the game a bit. Yes. But thats excactly what we need. Its excactly what we need. have you seen the player statistics recentlly? The trend has been down for a long time. Its time to shake things up. It has the potential to disrupt many areas of play. Its excactly what is needed. Besides if you dont like someone trying to build a stargate, you just pay them a visit. You ask them to stop. And if they dont, well they gonna hear from your fleet of dreadnoughts and what not.


This isn't a logical argument.

First off, all games bleed players over time, even when they show positive growth. That's just replacements exceeding attrition.

The idea that some shakeup is going to magically change that is ridiculous. There's a term for that, it's called a "jesus feature" and you can read a lot about those, and why chasing them is bad, online. Some of that was written by CCP as part of their retrospectives after the Summer of Rage.

This idea is technically infeasible, mechanically questionable, and poorly thought out. That is exactly the kind of "shake up" the game *doesn't* need, and it certainly doesn't need space suddenly getting a lot smaller. We've been there, and to fix it CCP introduced a feature so unpopular the only thing people hate more than the feature is the idea of it being removed. (Hint: I'm talking about Jump Fatigue)

If you want to reverse that slope bulldoze the learning cliff, make the game more attractive for new players and easier to get into, and introduce more content for new and intermediate level players. Don't go trying to "shake things up" just for the sake of it, and don't make massive changes likely to just anger the existing stable part of the playerbase.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#15 - 2017-05-03 05:32:19 UTC
manus wrote:
This will disrupt the game a bit. Yes. But thats excactly what we need. Its excactly what we need. have you seen the player statistics recentlly? The trend has been down for a long time. Its time to shake things up. It has the potential to disrupt many areas of play. Its excactly what is needed. Besides if you dont like someone trying to build a stargate, you just pay them a visit. You ask them to stop. And if they dont, well they gonna hear from your fleet of dreadnoughts and what not.

Not all disruptions are good disruptions. You've provided no evidence that your proposed idea won't scare off everyone faster than currently.
Mnemo Noire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2017-05-04 09:46:47 UTC
Wander Prian wrote:
Wormhole-stabilizer idea number 4257....


It's a bad idea and would be abused to hell and back.


No


Surely there must be a point at which its balanced?

Lets say:
It can only be built over a static wormhole
Can only connect to other Wormhole space
Downgrades the maximum allowed mass one level (Frigate stays frigate/ Medium becomes Frigate/ large becomes Medium)
each wormhole system can only have 1 active(incoming OR outgoing) so no, you cant create your own ring system.
Make it mass regenerating, if there isnt enough mass remaining you cant jump.
Make it use fuel, if fuel runs out collapse the wormhole.
Make it take 8 hours to anchor, if the hole has collapsed due to mass before anchoring completes, repackage immediately.
Make it visable to all, and directly warpable.
If it gets reinforced, collapse the wormhole.

Risk with rewards :)
Rolling on laughing
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2017-05-04 10:05:40 UTC
It would lead to a new network, so PL and such could attack everywhere at any time.
--> so it´s a bad idea

WH are meant to be the "beyond null" space with many benefits and many risks.
Eve scales risk vs. benefit.

Proud member of NOTHING
Mnemo Noire
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2017-05-04 10:59:11 UTC
Rolling on laughing wrote:
It would lead to a new network, so PL and such could attack everywhere at any time.
--> so it´s a bad idea

WH are meant to be the "beyond null" space with many benefits and many risks.
Eve scales risk vs. benefit.



Eve doesnt scale risk with benefits well at all, otherwise WH space would be the most profitable space, Incursions and Null Space are more consistently profitable than WH space.
Cade Windstalker
#19 - 2017-05-04 13:18:01 UTC
Mnemo Noire wrote:
Eve doesnt scale risk with benefits well at all, otherwise WH space would be the most profitable space, Incursions and Null Space are more consistently profitable than WH space.


A point which is still debatable and which was patently false for a very very long time. W-Space used to be the most profitable space hands-down for ages, and it's still not exactly slouching in that department.

Mnemo Noire wrote:
Surely there must be a point at which its balanced?

Lets say:
It can only be built over a static wormhole
Can only connect to other Wormhole space
Downgrades the maximum allowed mass one level (Frigate stays frigate/ Medium becomes Frigate/ large becomes Medium)
each wormhole system can only have 1 active(incoming OR outgoing) so no, you cant create your own ring system.
Make it mass regenerating, if there isnt enough mass remaining you cant jump.
Make it use fuel, if fuel runs out collapse the wormhole.
Make it take 8 hours to anchor, if the hole has collapsed due to mass before anchoring completes, repackage immediately.
Make it visable to all, and directly warpable.
If it gets reinforced, collapse the wormhole.

Risk with rewards :)


Lets see, off the cuff abuses of this set of rules:

I can now setup in a WH system with a dual static, one that's a cap hole and another that's a null static. I can stabilize the second static and connect to another system with a Null static. I can now roll holes until I create a path from Null to somewhere else in Null.

I can now put a good sized Cruiser or even a Battleship fleet through W-Space to Null with remarkable consistency and little to no chance of getting cut off in W-space.

Fuel? Not a problem, pretty much at all, for any Null group.

8 hours is pretty much nothing, start it up with someone watching it during a lull in server pop during the week and you'll have no issues.

The mass is basically no issue, if you can get stuff into the hole you can get it through this hole.

You've basically just given Null and large WH groups the ability to create a superhighway network through W-space for less effort than is required to maintain a jump bridge network. Oh and pretty fundamentally changed the nature of living in W-space while you're at it, but I'd think that would be obvious.