These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at


  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Potential Idea for Discussion: Delaying signature appearance for K162s

First post First post First post
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#361 - 2014-03-24 16:52:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Gnaw LF wrote:
No one said 5 minutes, there is no mention of 5 minutes anywhere. Right now we are talking about the delay in general, the details of the duration are not even being addressed. I think 2 minutes or less is still good enough of a change.

If by "no one," you mean "Two Step," then yes.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Deadspace Zombie Factory
#362 - 2014-03-24 16:52:51 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Nothing wrong with it from our perspective, sure, but Fozzie said they wanted a design which wouldn't encourage probe spam, and anything which reduces RSI and doesn't eat into the lifespan of my left-click is welcome

Besides, with good D-scanning it's hard for, say, a gang of cloaky ambush tech3s to sneak through a K162 unnoticed anyway. Only marginally less so than if you have eyes on it. So I don't really see that the inability of the "defending" side to pick it up instantly would make that big an impact on their odds of getting caught and ganked.

In any case, as things stand there's a minimum time between when the wormhole spawns and when anybody can scan it down anyway, so if you only spawn it when you've got a fleet ready to blitz through...

I don't see that it would change much, is my point. Good and disciplined corps would just adapt, find a new way to gather the same intel and all that the development effort would accomplish is forcing the players to do more clicking to get more or less the same result. And the guys who aren't smart enough to adapt like that are already getting caught with their pants down anyway.

Now if you want to propose that both the K162 AND any ships that come through it should be invisible to both probes and D-scan for, say, twenty minutes and one minute (during that 20 minutes) respectively, then that might genuinely increase the amount of uncertainty and fog-of-war in W-space. Newly-spawned K162s might in that case pose a genuine threat to the security of anything in that system regardless of how vigilant they're being. The proposal as floated without the ships also inheriting some kind of invisibility still leaves open loopholes that would cause nothing to really change.

so instead of having probes in space I should just have to have an alt in d scan range of a randomly spawning wh........that makes a lot of sense.......jesus I guess ppl would just stop using large systems.........and you ppl do realize that a new k162 is already wont show up till it gets jumped thru the first time right??? If u roll a brand new hole u have plenty of time b4 it opens on the other side if no one jumps thru........
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#363 - 2014-03-24 16:53:08 UTC
so..if I'm rolling my static and end up opening into a larger entity i can't fight I'd be able to..roll the static

they wouldn't even know i was there, or be able to do anything before im crashing the hole

rolling shouldn't be risk free..
Erasmus Phoenix
#364 - 2014-03-24 16:54:09 UTC
Gnaw LF wrote:
Deeone wrote:
under the new system u have 5 mins to gather perfect intel b4 they even know your there yeah totally balanced. Get rid of the stupid discovery changes and give us back the balanced system we had b4. tbh 70% of the holes I used to jump into with ppl farming there were no probes out. Most of the time probe spammers are in caps and stuck for a set time anyway. Just getting rid of discovery scan is enuf. yeah probe spam is boring to do that's why a lot of ppl just don't do it.........not to mention if I roll my hole and decide I don't like what I see on the other side I can just roll it again without ever having to worry about it being scanned down..........this is just ccp trying to say there was always a problem and it wasn't their system that broke things when in reality their system broke wh pvp. now they want to see if they mess it up even more.

No one said 5 minutes, there is no mention of 5 minutes anywhere. Right now we are talking about the delay in general, the details of the duration are not even being addressed. I think 2 minutes or less is still good enough of a change.

No one? several people have suggested 5 minutes plus or minus two minutes. That's one of the most common numbers I've seen thrown around in this thread.
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#365 - 2014-03-24 16:56:14 UTC  |  Edited by: SAMA SANCHAN
I agree with this potential change and I'll tell you why in a moment.

I'm a c5 dweller that depends on the isk that I make running sites with my Corp to fund my pvp in all arenas eve has to offer. I understand the lucrative aspects of wormhole life exist because of the significant amount of risk involved. Moreover, I think that this is what Fozzie is trying to get at... due to the current trends of wormholers, the risk is being averted through careful scouting. But, Fozzie asks us now if these methods are too secure.

What I'm getting at is wormholes may actually benefit from a cut throat lifestyle where it truly is survival of the fittest. This change might scare off the risk averse but for those who welcome the challenge; I say you belong in this space.

If it were up to me I would introduce this change carefully. With c1 k162's having different attributes than those in a c6. You can even change the wormhole exit names for varying classes. All im saying is c1 dwellers didnt sign up for the same risk as those in a c6. People in a c6 or c5 should be feeling the stress and placing the scouts at each set of isolated planets.

Like i said this would scare off a bunch of folk from wh space. So prices would change and having the extra manpower for scouting might be feasible, having a few falcons cloaked for security, etc. This is what I feel wh space should be like. Real danger.

that's my 10

na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
#366 - 2014-03-24 16:57:10 UTC

Yeah, pvpers never risk their ships by warping into a sleeper site full without full knowledge of their opponent. When you try to kill someone in sleeper site you don't know how many people they have logged off in their system, you don't know how many capital ships they can bring in on a moments notice. Yes, ganks will still happen but to say that pvp oriented players don't have a risk when they initiate a fight is ridiculous. [/quote]

Yo - if they had dreads logged off in the system it would be on the site with them to make the site running faster. so YES you can say with a high degree of certainty how many caps they have and how many people they got.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#367 - 2014-03-24 16:57:56 UTC

I am in favor more randomization and anything that increases risk in wormholes.

If I have 5-6 minutes of stealth of look around with a buzzard and decide if i want to prep a cap trap or cloaky bubbler or whatnot, I am all in favor.


- im sick and tired of losing carrier and botter kills.
Bane Nucleus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#368 - 2014-03-24 17:07:51 UTC
Plenty of people died running pve sites BEFORE the discovery scanner change. I don't understand the "fix what's not broken" mentality.

No trolling please

Hedge Fox
#369 - 2014-03-24 17:10:34 UTC
CCP Development Plan: Focus on ISK-sink creation. We need to blow up more ISK so we can sell more PLEX. Pirate
Julius Caeserr
Cosmic Creations
#370 - 2014-03-24 17:12:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This change would make life in wormholes a bit less safe, and increase the sense of real danger that unknown space should include. The flipside is that actively hunting for pvp in wormholes should present more targets that have a slightly shorter notice to your arrival.

You're kidding right? As someone who lives in a WH on and off (C2) I can tell you there is more than enough of a sense of "real danger", and nothing about living in a WH is safe. If anything there is too much real danger. Now that cosmic signatures do not need to be scanned down in order to warp to them (thanks for that, by the way...) those of us living in WHs get little to no notice when someone warps in on us and ruins our day. We already are having to spam D-scan to try to get the couple seconds of notice that helps us stay alive, and you want to make it easier for the people trying to find and kill us? I don't always want to PvP guys. Sometimes I want to be able to run the content you've done a good job of creating for us inside the WH. Otherwise, why don't you just remove all the signature content and make it a pure PVP realm. You keep making changes forcing those of us that live there to go that direction anyway.

#371 - 2014-03-24 17:13:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Bleedingthrough
I don't get that either, Bane. And I would like to understand why OUR CSMs come up with such an idea?

Why not fix the real issue: C5 farmers! Change these cap escalations that you can't run em with only 5 ppl. !!!
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#372 - 2014-03-24 17:14:13 UTC
Hedge Fox wrote:
CCP Development Plan: Focus on ISK-sink creation. We need to blow up more ISK so we can sell more PLEX. Pirate

How is this an isk sink?
Rolled Out
#373 - 2014-03-24 17:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
na'Vi Ronuken wrote:

Yo - if they had dreads logged off in the system it would be on the site with them to make the site running faster. so YES you can say with a high degree of certainty how many caps they have and how many people they got.

This is very very wrong.

I'm right behind you

#374 - 2014-03-24 17:28:44 UTC  |  Edited by: BoBoZoBo
mkint wrote:
lol, first you add sensor overlay, then you make it mandatory because 90% of your players would shut it off altogether and that doesn't look good on a resume, and now you're realizing it's causing problems? Who'da thunk.

I'm not a WH dweller, but it makes sense to me to have no sensor overlay at all outside of empire space or maybe even have it highsec-only, especially in w-space. It removes the exploration part of exploration.

From a logical point of view, a wormhole is a wormhole. Why should it make a difference in what end it's being probed out? It's already leaning in favor of whoever's on the other side because they'll already be at 0m to the wormhole and the k162 side would still need to be probed out. The aggressors already have a time advantage.

and isn't the no local supposed to be the make-it-easy-for-bored-nullbear-aggressors factor?

As someone who was a WH dweller - THIS right here. What you are describing is a symptom of a problem YOU guys created with over-reaching probe and overview changes, and are now trying to swim upstream to "fix" a problem that isn't really even there (what is the real game-breaking problem here exactly?). It's madness.

Why introduce some other artificial timer for only ONE side of the wormhole. I hate to call ideas terrible, but this is. Entering entity already has the advantage which has been proven by countless killmails.

Solution - none needed, leave it alone... or fix the ROOT cause of these symptoms.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite

Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#375 - 2014-03-24 17:33:58 UTC
All im saying is c1 dwellers didnt sign up for the same risk as those in a c6. People in a c6 or c5 should be feeling the stress and placing the scouts at each set of planets.

this dude strikes an interesting point; there's a general sense that say, a c2 is 'safer' than the c6 when in fact they have a lot of identical mechanics and are ~basically~ at the same level of dangerous, using unbonused stars in this train of thought (cause there sure are enough of them).
The wormholes operate mostly in the same way, just with mass restrictions. Sites, statics, planets, stars, no local, all of these things/concepts operate and function in the same way. The only thing that scales with the Class is difficulty of PVE sites. Inherently, does that mean the reason the C6 is "dangerous" in the first place is because you most likely have a larger, more organized, better equipped group of people living in that C6 compared to the C2? Kind of, I think. The small guys still face an unproportional amount of risk existing in WH space.
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#376 - 2014-03-24 17:43:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Alisyana
I'll say it again:

1. Remove d-scan.
2. Remove scan overlay.

Use probes to find ships, sigs, etc.

I'll explain this a bit. All I see is incessant whining about how there's no good fights, everyone bluebells, there no conflict driver, and the only real PVP is straight up ganks. It was that way 4 years ago, it's the same now. The straight up gank isn't pvp - it's the furthest thing from it, no different from ganking a cyno ship on a station, or a hauler in lowsec.

It's no fun when you know you're guaranteed to win, unless your self esteem is so low you need that repeated jolt to tell yourself how elite you are. So if you want to increase the chances of a "random" meeting of ships, get rid of the tools they use every day to decide "not" to engage. How many fights are passed on, because you don't have enough in fleet, or don't think you can take on what you see on d-scan? So make it harder, and more intensive to find out. Sure, display what's on scan with combat probes, but now you have some work to do.

I spend 2+ years with TL, and most of the fights we had were straight up ganks. Find some Tengu's running a C4, watch them while we gather up 15-20 guys (because no one wants to get left out, right?), and **** them. Meh. Not a lot of fun.

Roam around with a 20-man fleet, run into a 10-man fleet, they run and reship into a 40-man fleet, and come back. Do you fight? Probably not. The issue is because you know what they have, you won't fight unless you think you can win. And when everyone escalates - no one wins. If you can't d-scan, you either fight or flee - you still have those choices, but how you base those decisions is now on how well you can evaluate a combat scan, and how well you know your targets.

By point of contrast to show how "safe" things are, w-space lacks the one thing that makes the null fleets uncertain, no matter what the numbers: A Cyno. You can have a 200-man fleet sieging an ihub, but in the blink of an eye a cyno can change that dynamic and now you are outnumbered, out positioned, and outgunned. W-space doesn't have that, so you roll around looking for the gank you know you can win, and the only thing that can tip that balance is how many people they can log on to fight you with before you kill off what you have locked down. It's relative safety, for both sides. No, I'm not advocating cyno's in w-space, but you need to remove the "certainty" and re-institute the "unknown" and I think every one would have more fun.

You want scary, unknown, dangerous space? Then push for it.

**Definition of "SD" (Self Destruct) = "It's like running up to someone to kick them in the balls, they see you and proceed to kick themselves in the balls, and then laugh at you for denying someone a chance to kick them in the balls." ** - Celery Man

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2014-03-24 17:54:39 UTC
Get rid of sensor overlay but if I'm scanning I want the accurate results, no delay there that is a shabby fix/adjustment.

I disagree

r Cubed
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#378 - 2014-03-24 17:59:37 UTC
If you want to add delay, add it across the board(d-scan, discovery scan, distance from probes to signature).... perhaps using the speed of light as a reference, at-least this would make sense. Down side, you'd wait over an hour to know that somethings changed at the edge of your d-scan range.
^^^But you'll prob never hear the end of complaints from that, so more realistically \/ \/ \/

Ax the discovery scanners updating signatures, we have probes for a reason o.0
Leave the rest of it alone, simple, problem solved

When a K162 spawns it is a Signature, probes detect signatures. If it's not probable it doesn't exist yet.
Schwa Nuts
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#379 - 2014-03-24 18:10:33 UTC
Two step wrote:
No, the hilarious part is the nullsec farmers coming out and complaining about losing ships to logoff gangs.

You don't know anything about me and are making bad assumptions based off my corp tag. I am not complaining, just stating fact to counter to the argument that it is "risk-free farming."

Additionally, while I have great respect for the big w-space pvp alliances, it is quite obvious that such a change benefits them more than anyone else. Those that suggest this change would lower w-space population are right.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#380 - 2014-03-24 18:20:13 UTC
Alisyana wrote:
Wormhole........ A Cyno.


And for the first time ever I don't have to explain why :-P