These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Idea: New Deployable - Wormhole Generator

Author
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
#21 - 2014-03-14 04:51:55 UTC
Collapsing one's own static can be a great way to shift the chain around a little. And if your static leads to a system with a nice static of its own but it happens to have been a poor roll? Then roll your static's static (and so on and so forth) for extra edginess points. If anyone stops you along the way then you've got fun pew on your hands, either way it's a win/win.

I'm not even attempting to troll. A 100MN prop mod can be a great wormhole generator with some quick math and teamwork!

I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way.

Destination Unreachable: the worst Wspace blog ever

Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
#22 - 2014-03-14 05:59:16 UTC
Squelch wrote:
(Unless you live in a C4/C4 it is impossible to have a dead end chain


C4 chain will always lead to k space via static or k162. Might be 10 deep but it always does unless choke point is collapsed.
Quinn Corvez
Perkone
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-03-14 07:54:33 UTC
Bane Nucleus wrote:
While I like the idea of more wormholes, I don't think a player influenced approach is the way to go. Maybe CCP can allow the wormhole environment to produce more random connections to random wormholes. This would still allow more options as far as where to go, while still leaving the randomness of wormholes intact.


I disagree. IMO player created content is better than random mechanics.
Zlorthishen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-03-14 07:54:38 UTC
Only BOB is able to open His Holey wormholes, and only He decides where they open to.

Your suggestion borders on blasphemy.
Glyndi
Ehefkae
#25 - 2014-03-14 08:39:40 UTC
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Bane Nucleus wrote:
While I like the idea of more wormholes, I don't think a player influenced approach is the way to go. Maybe CCP can allow the wormhole environment to produce more random connections to random wormholes. This would still allow more options as far as where to go, while still leaving the randomness of wormholes intact.


I disagree. IMO player created content is better than random mechanics.


Players create content using those random mechanics, them being random adds to the excitement of logging in everyday. Opening and closing WH's via module on demand is a terrible idea.
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#26 - 2014-03-14 08:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Glyndi wrote:
Quinn Corvez wrote:
Bane Nucleus wrote:
While I like the idea of more wormholes, I don't think a player influenced approach is the way to go. Maybe CCP can allow the wormhole environment to produce more random connections to random wormholes. This would still allow more options as far as where to go, while still leaving the randomness of wormholes intact.


I disagree. IMO player created content is better than random mechanics.


Players create content using those random mechanics, them being random adds to the excitement of logging in everyday. Opening and closing WH's via module on demand is a terrible idea.


Isn't that essentially what we do when we collapse wormholes with mass?

If you had a module that created a wormhole, the connection would still be random. All it would be doing is replicating the process of chain rolling in a way that is accessible to everyone.

Increasing the spawn rate of wondering wormholes would affect everyone in wormhole space, so much so that is could drive some people out.
Glyndi
Ehefkae
#27 - 2014-03-14 09:16:42 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

Isn't that essentially what we do when we collapse wormholes with mass?

If you had a module that created a wormhole, the connection would still be random. All it would be doing is replicating the process of chain rolling in a way that is accessible to everyone.

Increasing the spawn rate of wondering wormholes would affect everyone in wormhole space, so much so that is could drive some people out.


How would increasing a random spawn be more harmful then a bunch of players opening WHs at their will which isn't random at all? Rolling the static already function in this way, why have a module that does the exact same thing.

In theory you could have one group rolling the static and another in the same hole opening up WHs with a module. Sounds like this would affect way more people because it's not random at all.
Jay Joringer
13.
Enigma Project
#28 - 2014-03-14 09:29:17 UTC
Brilliant idea. You should also be able to load a script so that it can stabilise wormholes.





No?

I'll get my coat.

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#29 - 2014-03-14 09:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Glyndi wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:

Isn't that essentially what we do when we collapse wormholes with mass?

If you had a module that created a wormhole, the connection would still be random. All it would be doing is replicating the process of chain rolling in a way that is accessible to everyone.

Increasing the spawn rate of wondering wormholes would affect everyone in wormhole space, so much so that is could drive some people out.


How would increasing a random spawn be more harmful then a bunch of players opening WHs at their will which isn't random at all? Rolling the static already function in this way, why have a module that does the exact same thing.

In theory you could have one group rolling the static and another in the same hole opening up WHs with a module. Sounds like this would affect way more people because it's not random at all.


I guess it wouldn't be anymore harmful really.

Whether you roll a wormhole or use a module to create one, you would still be randomly connecting to another system.

Increasing wandering wormholes would be a pretty boring change IMO. If CCP introduce a wormhole generator, they would achieve the same goal but we would also have a new structure to attack and fight over and people would stop asking for duel static to be added to c4-c6 wormholes.
Lenroc Elisav
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-03-14 09:35:42 UTC
Damn some of your are the most entrenched SOBs I've seen.
How about this twist to his idea:

New structure: "Mobile worm-hole sparkler"

Description: Mobile structures that allows the capsuleers to initiate the form-up of a new random worm-hole with-in the system. The worm-hole will have all the attributes and characteristics of a natural formed worm-hole (meaning for the slow ones out there that if it spawns a C5->C6 it will have the mass restrictions and life duration as a C5->C6 natural WH).

Attributes:
-Needs anchoring level one
-Has a 15 minutes anchoring time
-Needs fuel in the form of strontium
-Only one such structure allowed per star system
-Cool down period 24 hours (after activation) after cool down it needs refueling.
-During cool down the structure is invulnerable (again for the slow kittens you can't destroy it and deploy another fresh one)
-Volume 500 m3

Why? For fun.

P.S. This was posted as a pure exercise and I don't care for it one way or the other and no, I didn't dug through a pile of muddy forum posts to see if this "gem" Pirate was proposed before.
I'm wearing my hazmat suit so your **** flinging is pointless Cool.
Foedus Latro
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#31 - 2014-03-14 09:50:23 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:

I guess it wouldn't be anymore harmful really.

Whether you roll a wormhole or use a module to create one, you would still be randomly connecting to another system.

Increasing wandering wormholes would be a pretty boring change IMO. If CCP introduce a wormhole generator, they would achieve the same goal but we would also have a new structure to attack and fight over and people would stop asking for duel static to be added to c4-c6 wormholes.



What's the purpose of this module that rolling your static doesn't accomplish? Using a module to create a wormhole would be a lazy way of scanning down your chain to get a direct to your hole. And what if you have a dead or undesirable chain? Roll your hole. There's no need to generate new holes with a module when you have a perfectly fine static - which you chose by living in that hole - to use.

Just a wormhole guy

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#32 - 2014-03-14 09:56:14 UTC
Try reading the third paragraph. I sneakily hid the answer to your question way down there. Twisted
Foedus Latro
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2014-03-14 09:59:35 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Try reading the third paragraph. I sneakily hid the answer to your question way down there. Twisted


What's the reason to fight over the proposed deployable though? If there's no ISK or incentive in this game, players won't care. What do I care that some other corp has a wormhole generator in their hole?

Just a wormhole guy

Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#34 - 2014-03-14 10:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I'm thinking more along the lines of the wormhole generator i described on the first page. That structure would drop sleeper loot and if someone was threatening to take away your ability to create a second static, most people would fight over that. Would you agree?
Cheesy Feet
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2014-03-14 11:51:50 UTC
Yes sir, intelligent debate on wormhole generators you want?
This has been ongoing for months just over there through the door marked exit -> once outside please turn right and use the other door marked Google, have a nice day!
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings
#36 - 2014-03-14 12:20:24 UTC
Adoris Nolen wrote:
Squelch wrote:
(Unless you live in a C4/C4 it is impossible to have a dead end chain


C4 chain will always lead to k space via static or k162. Might be 10 deep but it always does unless choke point is collapsed.


False
The Cue
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2014-03-14 12:52:23 UTC
Adoris Nolen wrote:
Squelch wrote:
(Unless you live in a C4/C4 it is impossible to have a dead end chain


C4 chain will always lead to k space via static or k162. Might be 10 deep but it always does unless choke point is collapsed.

It's possible to have a C4 loop in which case you have no way out. Since C4 space doesn't have any dynamic wormholes, it's more likely to encounter this loop as opposed to C5 or C6 space.

Rek Seven wrote:
Increasing wandering wormholes would be a pretty boring change IMO. If CCP introduce a wormhole generator, they would achieve the same goal but we would also have a new structure to attack and fight over and people would stop asking for duel static to be added to c4-c6 wormholes.


Increasing dynamic connections would increase the number of connections without removing the probing structure of play that is required by WH space.
Adoris Nolen
Sama Guild
#38 - 2014-03-14 13:22:35 UTC
Dunno what C4 space you guys play in but there's always a way out from C4 space via statics. The only time that ends if some1 down the chain collapses a static.

So if you have a C4 - c4-c6-c6-c4 chain of ridiculousness that doesn't lead to kspace at all. One of the wh's in the chain will either get a roaming pop up, like c2-c4/hs or c2 -c6/ns. If you roll any of the wormholes in the chain, the next system will definately route to kspace.
Rek Seven
The Persuaders
#39 - 2014-03-14 13:22:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
The Cue wrote:

Rek Seven wrote:
Increasing wandering wormholes would be a pretty boring change IMO. If CCP introduce a wormhole generator, they would achieve the same goal but we would also have a new structure to attack and fight over and people would stop asking for duel static to be added to c4-c6 wormholes.


Increasing dynamic connections would increase the number of connections without removing the probing structure of play that is required by WH space.


True but a wormhole generator would not decrease the need to probe either, (combat scan) plus it would introduce the other features that i listed.

I don't think CCP should change the current mechanics (apart from black holes), instead i would like them to give players the tools to augment the game/mechanics to achieve the goals we are talking about.
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#40 - 2014-03-14 13:48:52 UTC
Adoris Nolen wrote:
Dunno what C4 space you guys play in but there's always a way out from C4 space via statics. The only time that ends if some1 down the chain collapses a static.

So if you have a C4 - c4-c6-c6-c4 chain of ridiculousness that doesn't lead to kspace at all. One of the wh's in the chain will either get a roaming pop up, like c2-c4/hs or c2 -c6/ns. If you roll any of the wormholes in the chain, the next system will definately route to kspace.


I lived in a C4-C4 back in the day, and "back in my day", we did encounter loops. Infact there are even threads about these loops if you feel compelled to hunt them down. The argument that C4's don't always lead to known space and can "dead end" is true, however it seems you are refering to the chance of someone else opening into a loop, which can also happen.

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: [email protected]

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

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Previous page123Next page