These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Kronos] More lowsec K-K wormholes

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-05-13 17:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Hi everyone,

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

Which we thought was interesting, and we thought about some more, and we said "hey, more wormholes, right?".

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-05-13 17:51:15 UTC
Regarding the "small fleet" angle of these holes, is it possible to mass-limit these types of holes so that they are primarily used for pvp, instead of as logistics shortcuts for freighters?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-05-13 17:51:22 UTC
Sounds like fun.
Axe Coldon
#4 - 2014-05-13 17:52:00 UTC
Sounds good to me...

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2014-05-13 17:52:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Klarion Sythis
Edit: Nevermind, I'm illiterate.
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-05-13 17:52:38 UTC
Interesting...
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2014-05-13 17:54:18 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Querns wrote:
Regarding the "small fleet" angle of these holes, is it possible to mass-limit these types of holes so that they are primarily used for pvp, instead of as logistics shortcuts for freighters?

They're already mass limited as with all holes. Any specific limits to prevent specific activities?

Sorry; I should have clarified. I'm talking "maximum size" restrictions, similar to how, e.g., C1s only allow small ships.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#8 - 2014-05-13 17:55:22 UTC
Interesting. What is low --> null and low --> low % now?
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#9 - 2014-05-13 17:55:32 UTC
Would it be possible to move wormholes out of the signatures categories and put them into one of their own so we can filter between wormholes, anomalies and signatures? Wormholes already clutter up exploration and with more wormholes, this cluttering will only become worse.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-05-13 17:56:10 UTC
yes
Gabriel Luis
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#11 - 2014-05-13 18:00:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Luis
EDIT: For someone who has lived in lowsec for ~2 years, I think that would be an awesome improvement.

Querns wrote:
Regarding the "small fleet" angle of these holes, is it possible to mass-limit these types of holes so that they are primarily used for pvp, instead of as logistics shortcuts for freighters?


How do you pretend to shortcut freighters within low > low connections? Or are you talking about null > low?

[03:18:54] Zack1023 > tishu = pl, nc.
350125GO
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2014-05-13 18:00:51 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Would it be possible to move wormholes out of the signatures categories and put them into one of their own so we can filter between wormholes, anomalies and signatures? Wormholes already clutter up exploration and with more wormholes, this cluttering will only become worse.


Wow, they buffed exploration by making the sigs so obvious and now you want it made even simpler?

I think as long as you're not increasing low to hs numbers it looks good. Do k-space systems have limits on holes appearing like w-space has 1 or 2 statics? If not, what are the chances a low sec system spawns multiple w-holes (not K162s from w-space)?

You're young, you'll adjust. I'm old, I'll get used to it.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-05-13 18:01:52 UTC
Querns wrote:
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Querns wrote:
Regarding the "small fleet" angle of these holes, is it possible to mass-limit these types of holes so that they are primarily used for pvp, instead of as logistics shortcuts for freighters?

They're already mass limited as with all holes. Any specific limits to prevent specific activities?

Sorry; I should have clarified. I'm talking "maximum size" restrictions, similar to how, e.g., C1s only allow small ships.

Yeah, if I'd read it properly I would have understood.

The low to high rate stays the same and any low-low or low-null connection still represents a point in space that a freighter could be caught and killed, even with an adjacent HS. Max of 4 freighter passes anyway I assume. Seems like interesting gameplay with risks.
Minus Dronus
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#14 - 2014-05-13 18:03:26 UTC
+1 lets do it!
Blodhgarm Dethahal
8 Sins of Man
Stray Dogs.
#15 - 2014-05-13 18:03:59 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Would it be possible to move wormholes out of the signatures categories and put them into one of their own so we can filter between wormholes, anomalies and signatures? Wormholes already clutter up exploration and with more wormholes, this cluttering will only become worse.


No, its called exploration, not 'scan this for candy'

You should have to figure out if its a wormhole by scanning it to 25% and ignoring it, takes one scan anyway if you do it right.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2014-05-13 18:04:08 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Interesting. What is low --> null and low --> low % now?

That was stated in the post.

9% and 20% chance per lowsec system (approximately) respectively from what I interpreted.
stoicfaux
#17 - 2014-05-13 18:04:27 UTC
FOOLS! Are ye that blind?!?

CCP: We need to nerf force projection.
CSM (aka Goonsquad): Eeeeeeeeeeek! I mean, okay...
Goonsquad + Goonleaderwaffles: *whisper*whisper*
CSM (aka Goonsquad): We need more wormholes in low-sec.


tl;dr- More wormholes == an end run around the Force Projection Nerf!


/taking away the tinfoil doesn't make it any less true

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#18 - 2014-05-13 18:05:05 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

Which we thought was interesting, and we thought about some more, and we said "hey, more wormholes, right?".

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)


Someone likes this proposed change. :-D
Enteron Anabente
Provident Provisions
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#19 - 2014-05-13 18:05:25 UTC
What are the current numbers (i.e., how much of an increase is this)? And can you give the numbers for hisec and nullsec, for comparison? I don't think I've ever seen these published before.
stoicfaux
#20 - 2014-05-13 18:07:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

Small roaming fleets of super-cap ships? Were there also any talks about fiddling with wormhole mass limits? Or maybe new wormhole types (i.e. ones that accept "infinite" mass, but launch your ship/fleet to a random exit point in K space? (Where random isn't the random you're thinking of.)

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
123Next pageLast page