Wormholes

tl;dr - Questions about progressive versus conservatism in wormhole development. Questions bolded below.

Something I’m learning a ton about quite recently is the depth and detail of different playstyles outside what my friends and I have enjoyed over the last few years. Take Nightingale’s response, along with many responses I’ve received recently from players about this game and our communities. Some of us, like myself enjoy the war, conflict, and the battlefield; while some players such as a few who replied to my Super Highway article simply like the serene and quiet gameplay where they can live or simulate their virtual life in peace.

The loud voices within the “notable” and more well-known wormhole entities propose ideas advocating change, conflict, and interaction; while some recent voices joining in the conversation advocate conservatism, with respect to maintaining the enjoyable environment they provide for themselves and their friends. They accuse the loud progressives of dismissing their style of gameplay, and disrespecting their view of how to play Eve Online. They refer to the progressives as “bullies”, “griefers”, and simply “disrespectful”.

After observing and participating in these discussions recently, I try to think about how a CSM delegate breaks down this information, reviews the perspective of the various groups, and makes the best decisions for the “community”. The more I’m learning, the less inclined I am to even refer to this as a community, as there seems to be a large community of players (C5/C6 Residents), a couple smaller communities (individual friendships between alliances/corps), even smaller communities to individuals residing quietly in various parts of the greater wormhole area, and then the individual corporations and alliances within wormhole space.

Take the Super Highway idea, for example, where a number of groups were very excited and very much liked the idea of removing the old C4 highway, dead-end pipes, and quiet cul-de-sacs and transforming it into an opportunity to spread throughout wormholes. After the article was published, it would seem a hornets’ nest had been rattled; an outcry from the C1-C4 residents that the idea was more “bullying” from the C5/C6 community. I recall one guy even referring to C5/C6 dwellers as carebears, even though he said he had to run 5x the sites to make what they earn in their systems? I digress.

So, as I spoke with some friends, I asked them, “Apparently our gamestyle and ideas negatively impact the gamestyle of another group, and they seem to think we completely are dismissing them and proposing to ruin the game for them. What do you think?” One reply ofcourse was “well, they’re weak, so who cares…”, another was “I don’t envy that diplo/CSM s***, bruh”, but then I was asked, “do you think that they realize or care that they are equally dismissing our gamestyle and ideas?”

So, I’m curious, what are your views and thoughts on the future of this “community”, wormholes, and Eve Online? Do we shelf the progressive changes to appease one group, dismissing the desires of another; do we act on progressive changes to appease the other group, while dismissing the style of the other; how would you weigh the gains and losses of players, and how would you justify your decisions?

There can be a middle ground taking into account both sides and ends of the spectrum.

**Edit** I don't speak about a democratic approach either. I simply mean that you can listen to what all sides are saying, and find a solution that all sides will be able to live with without destroying the reason they play.

**Edit2** My response from No-Local:

I do indeed believe that we as a community are leaning towards additional wandering wormholes being the answer we’re looking for. Between calls for stabilizers, generators, and additional static connections we’re looking for more ways to connect and interact with other wormholers.

I do not believe that a random mass wormhole is going to be the answer either. What if instead we have wandering wormholes that have different mass allowances and lifetimes than the normal connections we see in systems. For instance all connections into C4 space have the exact same mass allowance and can all be crushed in the same way.

Having a new connection that required half or even double the amount of battleships would be an interesting way to increase the diversity without making things random. This would increase the need for good scouting and paying attention to the type of wormhole connection you have entered/exited through.

Whatever u gonna do, just do NOT touch local in w-space...

For the most part, wormhole space has been designed very well and I don't think CCP need to change the way wormholes and their solar system function. However, i think we can all agree that, at some point in the future, there needs to be a wormhole expansion (new content).

If CCP were to start developing new content for wormhole space tomarrow, i would want them to do two things:

1. Allow players to upgrade/change a wormhole system using deployable structures (not at a pos) that drop loot if destroyed..
2. Introduce new Tech or content that would attract more people to wormhole space.

it's Rek Seven, why you surprised about this?
basically he doesnt want pulsar effects to stop him from fighting in 40 armour T3s all the time, every time.

whatever, ccp dont need another pure WH space expansion. it would be far better for them to work on mostly separate new content, which looks to be what theyre doing with the new stargates thing.
whs need a LOT less work than people seem to assume.

people keep trying to argue about what changes are needed in wh space when the real question is do whs need changing?
the answer to that is a solid no for me so i basically argue against all of the ideas put forth.

Not at all, Rek. Debate and discussion are welcome.

Community questions:

> Do we need "conflict drivers" added?
> Is it possible to balance any of the suggested "conflict drivers"?
> Any particular "modules" or "scenarios" proposed that could work if adjusted?
> What are the pro's and con's of adding or not adding "conflict drivers"?
> If changes to the game aren't desired, what would you expect from your CSM?

Feel free to add questions, answer questions, debate, discuss.

This is simply not true, We and a few other groups infact control POCO's in several inhabited WH systems.

To call the POCO system balanced is a bit odd as the only small groups that own POCO's in HS are in small dead end systems and they will long term be owned by the major groups like the popular POCO's are now. Is it a conflict driver? yes, Is it well balanced? No.

Should probably for this idea, and similar future ideas, propose both opposing ideas to devs, if you cant find common ground. Ultimately this is CCP game as much as it is ours. And give them both ideas and let them figure it out and find out where one fits with their future scheme of the game.

Just add some more pve content/loot that can be turned into usable products for all of eve. All the new mobile structures should have come from wh content.

Everything else is fine.