These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Hyperion Feedback Thread] Second Static for C4s

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#21 - 2014-08-06 15:48:10 UTC  |  Edited by: TomyLobo
Just confirming that with the new static mechanic, the K162 side will NOT spawn (un probable) until the residents from the other side jump through. So does this mean one can effectively seal their static until they are ready to jump through?
Luminocity
The Dark Revenants
PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
#22 - 2014-08-06 15:51:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Luminocity
TomyLobo wrote:
Just confirming that with the new static mechanic, the K162 side will NOT spawn (un probable) until the residents from the other side jump through. So does this mean one can effectively seal their static until they are ready to jump through?
The outer side (k162 side) of a static connection of a given wormhole would not spawn before the residents of *that* originating wormhole jump through, yes. As to sealing themselves in until ready - yes, but not much more so than it currently already is. Basically the difference in now vs. then is the warping and jumping time of the scout.

Currently if residents of a certain WH collapse their static connection and do not warp to the new one the effect is the same. It is not opened.
Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-08-06 16:01:00 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:
Just confirming that with the new static mechanic, the K162 side will NOT spawn (un probable) until the residents from the other side jump through. So does this mean one can effectively seal their static until they are ready to jump through?


Nothing new about that. Common practice has always been to roll your holes then not warp to the new sig if you want to be uninterrupted in your home system for PVE or whatever. Now it just means 2 holes to roll, and you can warp to them but not jump through.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#24 - 2014-08-06 16:01:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The new static is indeed guaranteed to be for a different class than your current static.


Implying it will not lead to C7 but wormhole space only. Unless you actually do not want to give that information out it might be good to be a bit more specific on the amount of new statics (f.e. 20 C4-C4s will turn into C4-C4-C1s). Otherwise questions like this will keep coming. Otherwise just tell us that we have to scan them all ourselves Smile
Alundil
Rolled Out
#25 - 2014-08-06 16:02:52 UTC
I think that adding a second static to C4 whs is a good thing.

And the fact that this is a simple 'add another static' like we've been asking for is good. I also like that it could connect to any type of wspace.

Nice

I'm right behind you
Longinius Spear
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
#26 - 2014-08-06 16:04:56 UTC
Making C4s not only useful but a platform for destruction ! AMAZING.

This makes me sooo happy. Its like a c2 but doesn't have a boring K-space connection!

Can you imagine how awesome a C4 to C4 to C2 would be?

That would be 1 Kspace always, and 3 Wspace connetions!! ALWAYS!

I think I'm going to pass out.


+1

Read more of my ramblings on my blog www.invadingyourhole.blogspot.com
Alundil
Rolled Out
#27 - 2014-08-06 16:07:42 UTC
I would further state that the income potential in C4 should be looked into as it is currently more valuable to run C3 sites than C4 sites. Someone mentioned this one page one but just reiterating so it gets noticed.

I'm right behind you
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#28 - 2014-08-06 16:08:24 UTC
I would have a issue with a C4 having a new C1 static, as it is extremely difficult to roll (the max mass it can accept is a retriever, to roll requires 20+ retriever passes).

If you were to do sometype of C4-C1 static, please increase the Max mass capable of fitting into all C1's to 60,000,000 (up from 20,000,000).

This permits Hulks to jump into C1's. And also denies all battleships from jumping into C1's EXCEPT the Nestor.

The Nestor is 56,000,000 mass. With 1 plate, its 59,750,000. This means that no battleship could fit into a C1 except a Nestor. You don't unbalance C1 functionality, but you give it a bit more flexibility, especially if they are to be more C4-C1 connections.


Yaay!!!!
Kennesaw Breach
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2014-08-06 16:08:29 UTC
Luminocity wrote:
WoAz wrote:
... Can a hole have two same-class statics?
Kennesaw Breach wrote:
So all that said, will the new w-space static for the C4s be guaranteed of a different type than the current static? Or could you possibly have a C4 with a static C4 and another static C4? I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that possibility, but I'm curious.

As per the dev blog no, the additional static can not be to the same system class as the first one.


Thanks, missed that in the text. I think the only people who won't like that are the ones thriving on the isolation, but I don't have much sympathy for them.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#30 - 2014-08-06 16:14:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Saisin
Sounds good to me...

By the way, I do think that all WH should also have a medium term damaging effect on un POs that are not online...

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Orange Aideron
Voidlings
V0IDLINGS
#31 - 2014-08-06 16:18:31 UTC
Luminocity wrote:

Currently if residents of a certain WH collapse their static connection and do not warp to the new one the effect is the same. It is not opened.


It will be interesting, if CCP add a timer on the K162. But I guess then the same mechanic of "DO NOT WARP TO THIS BOOKMARK" still exists.
Verran Skarne
4 Marketeers
#32 - 2014-08-06 16:37:17 UTC
I like giving C4s an additional static in concept, but agree with other posters:

- A static to a C1 is just going to suck, due to mass limitations on C1 connections. Ever spent 3 hours rolling a hole in battlecruisers? Yeah, that's a C1 :(

- C3 sites vs. C4 sites is a big area of concern. For PvE purposes, if you can live in a C4 effectively enough to warrant choosing them over a C3, then you can do a C5. Otherwise you're better off living in a C3.

I might have my numbers off (it's early), but if I remember right you can't jump a capital through a C4 connection (you can with a C5/C6). That being the case, does it make sense to allow the second C4 static to be a k-space static to low/null (but not to hi-sec?)

Doing that might open up an interesting opportunity for corps that have really outgrown hi-sec and low-class wormhole content but aren't able to deploy the capital ships or numbers needed to defend a C5/C6 system. Live and stage in a C4, and then go a-roaming on both sides of the fence. It would also make logistics a bit easier for folks in C4s, without giving them instant access to hi-sec.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#33 - 2014-08-06 16:47:21 UTC
Verran Skarne wrote:


- A static to a C1 is just going to suck, due to mass limitations on C1 connections. Ever spent 3 hours rolling a hole in battlecruisers? Yeah, that's a C1 :(


Yes that does suck, and you use retrievers not Battlecruisers (cheaper to lose, exactly 20 million mass). Thats why I am suggesting the mass cap be increased to 60 million mass on a C1 wormhole. Still cannot fit battleships, but you can come up with inventive ships to close it (that and the Nestor just barely fits into it if you really want to use a battleship)

Verran Skarne wrote:

- C3 sites vs. C4 sites is a big area of concern. For PvE purposes, if you can live in a C4 effectively enough to warrant choosing them over a C3, then you can do a C5. Otherwise you're better off living in a C3.


There is a pretty large group of people that come to wormhole space specifically to not deal with capitals. There are others who don't want to bother with capital evictions and seeding. With the dual static, the C4 groups now have two Wormholes to farm (aka Both their statics which goes to other wormholes).


Verran Skarne wrote:

I might have my numbers off (it's early), but if I remember right you can't jump a capital through a C4 connection (you can with a C5/C6). That being the case, does it make sense to allow the second C4 static to be a k-space static to low/null (but not to hi-sec?)



No I do not agree with any K-space connections at all in C4's. they are the deepest wormholes you can go into that can have 0 interaction with k-space. Giving any type of K-space connection just turns them into C2s with more difficult rats. Keep them Wormhole/Wormhole connections.

Yaay!!!!
Fonac
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2014-08-06 16:51:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The new static is indeed guaranteed to be for a different class than your current static.


Hey fozzie could we please get a comment on the other concerns raised in this topic? Regarding sites and logistics? Virtually every post(I just skimmed) comments on this.

As someone mentioned before, if you can live in a c4 you can live in a c5 aswell, while you just get the c3 rewards
CueCue QQ
Trypophobia Transit Nexus
#35 - 2014-08-06 16:57:05 UTC
Wanted to say this is a great change, I absolutely love it. This will make C4s more of a PvP hole, much less of a PvE hole(which explains all the PvE questions).

However, I'm curious as to the static combinations you'll be adding. Will we see specific groups like we do with C2(AKA, no such thing as a C2 with a NS and C2 static), or will all combinations be available?
Fireflynine
Wormhole Exploration And Production
#36 - 2014-08-06 17:01:11 UTC
Might as well give every WH another static
Arcturus Gallow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-08-06 17:05:10 UTC
Are you going to follow the same rules as C2s regarding "always the same pair of statics"?

I mean, All C2 which have a C3 static, have a HS static, All C2 with C2 static have lowsec static, all C2 with C5 static have null sec static and so on. (If not all, I never personally found a C2 that was not following this rule)

Is it going to be the same for C4 pairs or are the new statics going to be completely random ? And if it is like C2s, are you going to let us know before the patch hits or not ?


Also, regarding feedback. We are currently living in a C4/C4, so that means we will have a way bigger chain, with the addition of our own additional static, plus the additional static of our current C4 static. This is good for us, BUT I understand that most people living in C4 want to have a quiet place, and this will change a lot with this change. We may see a lot of movement from current C4 residents leaving and new inhabitants coming in.

I think this change will generally make C4s more interesting than they are now, but this change wont suit most of the current C4 inhabitants.
Verran Skarne
4 Marketeers
#38 - 2014-08-06 17:19:26 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:


Verran Skarne wrote:

- C3 sites vs. C4 sites is a big area of concern. For PvE purposes, if you can live in a C4 effectively enough to warrant choosing them over a C3, then you can do a C5. Otherwise you're better off living in a C3.


There is a pretty large group of people that come to wormhole space specifically to not deal with capitals. There are others who don't want to bother with capital evictions and seeding. With the dual static, the C4 groups now have two Wormholes to farm (aka Both their statics which goes to other wormholes).



I'm not sure I really understand what you mean with the comment about capitals. I get that people do w-space so that they don't have to deal with the ridiculousness of getting hot-dropped by a capital fleet any time they get a fleet together. But there's plenty of people building and maintaining capitals in wormholes. Heck, some days it seems like every other C4 we roll into has a carrier or dread sitting out at a POS somewhere in system.

What this change is going to do is turn C4s into a "junction" system. We already get that effect today to some extent, since a lot of other wormholes have C4 statics. That's great for increasing the connectedness of w-space, but it also means that even fewer people will want to live in a C4 unless they're just rabid PvPers with tons of ships to lose. Everyone wants some downtime now and again to run PI, or mine, or even just spin their ship in their POS. If the goal is to increase overall activity in C4s, then it seems to me the better approach would be to do something to make them more desireable for a smaller corp than a C3 (with greater risk). Otherwise, I don't think you'll really get more activity than you get now in them, since the activity will all come form people living elsewhere, rather than people living in the C4s themselves.
Kp Amelia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2014-08-06 17:31:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kp Amelia
First off, while I am glad wormholes and C4s in specific are getting some work done, I have extremely mixed feelings about the changes coming to C4s. This is as person who currently co-owns a C4 hole.

Currenty the two biggest problems bar far with C4s is the difficult logistics trying to move stuff in and out, but by far and away the biggest problem is the Isk making capability of them. C3s are much easier to run, while C5s have a MUCH higher payouts.

The new changes will improve logistics without a doubt, but the other much bigger problem still remains. Now if you are lucky you will get a new C3 static, but this is very luck based and also in no way improves the C4 its self. PVE is going to become a lot more dangerous with the increased traffic, but the reward will not be increased anywhere near as much.

Eve is a game of risk Vs reward, so I honestly can't get behind these C4 changes until we see an increased pay out from C4s along side the incoming increased risk.
Awrah
FRISKY BUSINESS.
#40 - 2014-08-06 17:39:43 UTC
All of this that KP said.... I like.... Make it so...

Quote:
First off, while I am glade wormholes and C4s in specific are getting some work done, I have extremely mixed feelings about the changes coming to C4s. This is as person who currently co-runs a C4 hole.

Current the two biggest problems bar far with C4s is the difficult logistics trying to move stuff in and out. But by far and away the biggest problem is the Isk making capability of them. C3s are much easier to run, while C5s have a MUCH higher payouts.

The new changes will improve logistics without a doubt, but the other much bigger problem still remains. Now if you are lucky you will get a new C3 static, but the is very luck based and also in no way improves the C4 its self. PVE is going to become a lot more dangerous with the increased traffic, but the reward will not be increased anywhere near as much.

eve is a game of risk worth reward, so I honestly can't get behind these C4 changes until we see an increased pay out from C4s along side the incoming increased risk.