These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Class 7 Wormhole Suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-02-18 11:29:35 UTC
the only thing this suggestion would be is MORE incentive to form huge alliances.
do. not. want.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#22 - 2014-02-18 11:32:01 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Bane Nucleus wrote:
Because we have so many unoccupied ones,....


wormholes were never intended to be 'occupied'


That is true but it doesn't mean what it's become doesn't matter

No trolling please
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-02-18 11:36:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Winthorp wrote:

If any of you think we need more ISK in higher class holes and not in the lower ones, i don't know how to explain that further to you without using some more of my "special" words.

And as a note calling you delusional isn't an insult if its fact.


What is it that Americans say about assuming? Nothing you just said is a fact, especially your opinion of me so don't jump to conclusions and point out holes about a theoretical new wormhole instead of thinking of simple solutions that would address your concerns.

The last thing we need is more isk in low class wormholes. If you aren't earning enough in a C2, move to a C4. If you still need more or don't like C4 space, move to C5 and so on... Low class wormholes aren't meant for big corps who get their kicks ganking drakes.

end of conversation.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-02-18 11:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jack Miton
Rek Seven wrote:
The last thing we need is more isk in low class wormholes. If you aren't earning enough in a C2, move to a C4. If you still need more or don't like C4 space, move to C5 and so on... Low class wormholes aren't meant for big corps how get their kicks ganking drakes.

your ignorance never ceases to amaze me mate.
fact is that you make more isk running L4s in HS than running C2 sites and you have zero risk in HS and significantly non zero risk in C2 WHs. this is very clearly a poor balance or risk vs reward.

and who said anything about large corps? you saying small corps shouldnt be able to make decent isk in WH space? please, just stop with the 'brilliant' ideas already.

There is no Bob.

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

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Winthorp
#25 - 2014-02-18 11:47:44 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Winthorp wrote:

If any of you think we need more ISK in higher class holes and not in the lower ones, i don't know how to explain that further to you without using some more of my "special" words.

And as a note calling you delusional isn't an insult if its fact.


What is it that Americans say about assuming? Nothing you just said is a fact, especially your opinion of me so don't jump to conclusions and point out holes about a theoretical new wormhole instead of thinking of simple solutions that would address your concerns.

The last thing we need is more isk in low class wormholes. If you aren't earning enough in a C2, move to a C4. If you still need more or don't like C4 space, move to C5 and so on... Low class wormholes aren't meant for big corps who get their kicks ganking drakes.

end of conversation.


I wouldn't know i'm glad i'm not an American.

You can get all high and mighty as you like getting butthurt that i called you delusional but there was no room for assumptions to be made by me, the OP clearly called them "sleepers" and not NPC's of no value.

If you don't think the level of ISK we make in C5/6 space isn't insane compared to the time/risk compared to how little they make in low class holes, then i will repeat in calling you "delusional".

Lets just keep going with the grain of laughing at low class WH'ers that pos up cause their WH''s don't support the numbers ours do and to the value that ship losses are no longer significant for us....
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-02-18 11:54:25 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:

your ignorance never ceases to amaze me mate.
fact is that you make more isk running L4s in HS than running C2 sites and you have zero risk in HS and significantly non zero risk in C2 WHs. this is very clearly a poor balance or risk vs reward.

and who said anything about large corps? you saying small corps shouldnt be able to make decent isk in WH space? please, just stop with the 'brilliant' ideas already.


Here is a pro tip from someone who used to live in a C2... Farm your static!

A small group can make a good living in a C2 through pve, PI and mining but everyone knows farming your static is the best potential isk earner.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
QT McWhiskers
MultiPass Inc.
The 5th Seal
#27 - 2014-02-18 12:02:21 UTC
For someone who is dual boxing, a c2 static c3 is the largest isk per hour (outside of marauder c5s) in WHs. 40m in blue loot every 5-10 minutes. Used to dual box nighthawks there (cause I was a scrub who was too cheap for a tengu) and made tons of isk.
Winthorp
#28 - 2014-02-18 12:23:18 UTC
They must all be so rich they can afford to PVP in bling T3's and fly around in 30man T3 fleets, ohh wait.... Roll

Yeah i have lived in a C2 C1/HS and a C2 C3/HS and a C3 HS. Yes while i made lots of ISK they are not the ISK wonderlands you like to make them out to be.
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#29 - 2014-02-18 14:35:07 UTC
You guys are forgetting the fact that ribbon prices have gone down the toilet.

With a price of ~4M a ribbon nowadays. C2's makes a very poor income source.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-02-18 14:54:21 UTC
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2014-02-18 16:55:47 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Bane Nucleus wrote:
Because we have so many unoccupied ones,....


wormholes were never intended to be 'occupied'



And Titans were not intended to be used in groups, but things happen and the gameplay is impacted by players. Now that wormholes are occupied we need CCP to work on features and issues that would bring new people to wormholes. Adding more systems is not the answer, thats like adding more null systems when the majority of null sec is already empty.
Gnaw LF
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2014-02-18 17:17:26 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


What is it that Americans say about assuming? Nothing you just said is a fact, especially your opinion of me so don't jump to conclusions and point out holes about a theoretical new wormhole instead of thinking of simple solutions that would address your concerns.

The last thing we need is more isk in low class wormholes. If you aren't earning enough in a C2, move to a C4. If you still need more or don't like C4 space, move to C5 and so on... Low class wormholes aren't meant for big corps who get their kicks ganking drakes.

end of conversation.



What you need to understand is that sleeper loot and mass limitations are a soft cap on how many people you can have living in one wormhole. If you get too many then all of a sudden you will see people lacking isk to buy their pew ships and all the mass just being used up in no time flat. By adding a new class of w-space systems with capital sleepers no less will only serve to increase the limit of pilots in the same system, once you do that and you get a couple of sizable alliances you will have the rest of w-space forming coalitions to balance out those alliances. That is not a healthy w-space.
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#33 - 2014-02-18 17:18:06 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
i'm glad i'm not an American.


woh woh woh woh woh... woh. Don't hate, mate.

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe
HTC NecoSino
Suddenly Carebears
#34 - 2014-02-18 17:40:00 UTC
I had already posted something regarding this..
Sleeper-Occupied Systems

Basically the higher the class, the more sleeper hubs (built on a moon/planet) that send out capital + support fleets to attack POSs, randomly reinforce anoms/sigs under attack, etc.

For some reason I don't see it happening any time soon.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2014-02-18 17:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Gnaw LF wrote:

What you need to understand is that sleeper loot and mass limitations are a soft cap on how many people you can have living in one wormhole. If you get too many then all of a sudden you will see people lacking isk to buy their pew ships and all the mass just being used up in no time flat. By adding a new class of w-space systems with capital sleepers no less will only serve to increase the limit of pilots in the same system, once you do that and you get a couple of sizable alliances you will have the rest of w-space forming coalitions to balance out those alliances. That is not a healthy w-space.


I don't really understand what you are saying Gnaw.

When Probe lived in a C2 static C4 we farmed our static and made a lot of isk in the beginning. As we grew, we started to find that farming C4 sites didn't provide enough isk when it had to be shared out between 10+ people so we went deeper into the chain in search of C5 wormholes with lots of sites to run. Eventually we decided to move to C6 space where we could earn lots of isk quickly and spend the rest of the time pvping. I don't think any of us wanted CCP to make C2 wormholes more lucrative so that we could play the game in easy mode.

You can't win with the wormhole community. They all say that we need to add things to wormhole space to encourage new people to move in but then everyone starts to reach for their pitchforks if someone suggests a new feature or a change in mechanics.

The idea for a new class of wormhole (e.g. C7) has been floating around for ages and when i argue for the implementation of C7 wormholes, i'm arguing for a wormhole class that has:

* A limited number in existence (e.g. 4 C7s only)
* No POSs
* New sites
* New tech (t3 versions of existing mods)
* Can only be accessed through C6 wormholes (maybe C5 also)
* Roaming sleepers (i want this for all classes really)
* Bigger mass limits
* New mechanics
* Multiple statics

This type of system would create a king of the hill situation where people have to live out of carriers and orcas while at the same time providing wormholes with some for of "end game" content for people to aspire to.

I believe that the biggest/strongest alliances need a reason to fight for control of C6 space and hold their systems, and i also believe that people in lower class wormholes should eventually move to higher classes to make way for the new guys.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#36 - 2014-02-18 18:00:35 UTC
Props to the OP and Rek for giving me a fresh bout of cancer, my radiotherapist sends his regards
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#37 - 2014-02-18 18:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bane Nucleus
Rek Seven wrote:


I believe that the biggest/strongest alliances need a reason to fight for control of C6 space and hold their systems, and i also believe that people in lower class wormholes should eventually move to higher classes to make way for the new guys.


So a ridiculously small minority of groups who are already rich get even richer. That doesn't exactly trickle down and improve wormhole space as a whole. If people haven't move up already with the isk difference that exists already, they aren't going to. Ask N0mex if they are going to move up if C7's come out, or any other larger low class entities.

No trolling please
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-02-18 18:05:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
It's about aspiration Bane. If you lived in a C1/C2 and there were these C7 wormholes in game, are you telling me you wouldn't want to one day live and fight in C7 space?

In the words of little finger "The climb is all their is". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7qugJ0MNio (replace the word "chaos" with "wormholes")

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#39 - 2014-02-18 18:10:27 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
It's about aspiration Bane. If you lived in a C1/C2 and there were these C7 wormholes in game, are you telling me you wouldn't want to one day live and fight in C7 space?


Nope. I edited my comment previously to reflect this. Sorry for the ninja edit but I had to tack it on P

No trolling please
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#40 - 2014-02-18 18:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Klarion Sythis
I support C7 wormholes that cannot be colonized and number in the single digits.

We can all just log off cap fleets in there and the first time someone tries to farm it will also be the last time.

Edit: I guess I should clarify. No, I don't actually think this is a good idea. I don't think these holes would change hands in the long run. For a while maybe, but eventually the biggest groups can hold them one way or another and it provides incentive to go join the winners, further consolidating power.