These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Assembly Hall

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[PETITION] Don't mess with OUR WH's - Two Step, We are counting on You

First post
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2012-12-05 21:01:45 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
First of all, Two Step - I hope I can count on Your support for this motion.

Now on to the topic:

Right now WH's are unique in their design and with that they are very different in their nature than k-space.

There are hard limits on what one can move trough a certain type of WH.

This limits both: ship size and ships amount that can at one time move into given WH in short time. This allows us to keep WH in range of small-pvp scale engagements. Which is great for WH gameplay

If anyone bottered to watch RnK famous Clarion Call 3 on Youtube - You can siege WH with small forces. Once You overcome initial resistance with good planning and resources You can start amassing troups inside (once you controll WH's in system its piece of cake)

WH are like fortresses of Middle Age Europe - You need to actually take time and preparations to siege them. But once You breach outer walls you can move more people in, as the gate is broken, and walls crumbled.

As history of W-space showed - no WH is inpenetrable.

What some members of CSM are sugesting is terrible - to implement some form of WH stabilizers? This will remove the hard limit that make this space unique. This will remove the hard work required to siege well-defended WH's. This will actually hurt more the small corps that dont have huge forces, but just enough to fight on equall footing against forces that can move trough their WH limits.

What W-space needs or could benefit from is totally different than what is proposed:

- WH need POS revamp
- WH needs individual storing place in hangars and more security of those
- WH needs more variety in terms of PVE (the same problems incursion have - to predictable)
- WH needs more dangers from Sleepers (sleepres atacking on safespots, rewarping to mining sites, atacking pos, etc)
- WH may need more variety in WH's - like ocassional smaller or lager WH (within current system capital limit - so no capitals in C1-4)
- WH may (i stress that - MAY) need some form of upgrades (this one is very, very delicate subject)
- WH may (i stress that - MAY) need some form of moon-mining (no moon goo, some totally different material that can be linked to some new features or maybe just the source of ice) - again a very delicate subject
- WH may need higher triers of WH (C7,8???) with even more difficult to counter bonuses/penalties and even harder Sleepres
- WH may need more variance in terms of anomalies bonuses (pulsar, blackhole, etc...)
- WH may need more WH systems added

- any form of moving supercaps inside
- any form of moving much larger forces trough a single WH
- any form of moving capital ships inside lower WH's (C1-4)
- any form of prolonging WH life to allow connection to Your home WH for entire Siege time (jump in, fight over space, reinfore, reinforce time, finish taking donw poses, get loot get back home)

honestly up in the air about most of these, however totally for mroe wormholes and C7+ wormholes, gets a little crowded in a C6 sometimes.
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#102 - 2012-12-06 00:51:02 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Yes, occasionally nice ships get caught trying to close a WH, that doesn't make it unsafe.... it could easily be just moronic pilots...

Whatever words you're trying to attribute to me, this is how I feel:

The ability to control your entrance and exits allows a WH dweller to make their system far more safe than I think they should be.... In my opinion, if you can dictate your entrances and exits, you have WAY to much control.... Imagine living in k-space, where you could tell the stargate to randomly aim at a different system anytime you want.... you just need to pass the right mass of ships through it.... that level of control is bad for the game, even if WH's don't have local, cyno's, or stations....

If changing WH mechanics involves some type of WH stabilizer, I'm more than willing to listen and evaluate it... it might make WH travel overly complicated or it might make an interesting and new tactical tool. I'm not vetoing the idea until I can review it within the appropriate framework... Also, I'm not saying WH stabilizers are the only way to solve the ease with which WH's are closed.... perhaps the mass equation needs to be balanced with diminishing returns, such that if you send a Specific Ship through a WH, it counts for full mass the first time, 10% mass the second time, 1% mass the third time and so on.... Then you might catch multiple orcas instead of just one...

ships get killed collapsing wh's all the time. and there is barely anything you can do to prevent that. declaoking is a ***** in a 3d space without reference.

as for controlling your entrence......pvp doesnt come through your static. it comes through k162. and when it does, it comes within seconds. in high class where you need siege and triage to pve this means that you have no choice but to fight, and usually die.

as for stabilizers, yes, we should always listen to evaluate. however any player side tempering with mass restrictions kills what makes wormholes the place we live in. as for making the mass equations different, youre just looking at it from the perspective as safety. please realise we need those statics for everything. to fight, to do pve, to get skill books, fuel etc. if we cant control the statics as we can right now it would mean high class wh space would become much much harder, but not in a way anyone in wormhole space would enjoy. high class depend on the mass calculations, even though often enough it brings death to ships when maths are off.

want general pve safety made less? as far as i know sleepers knew how to control wormholes and make them go where they want. they also only spawn to protect their assets, and they are very advanced. maybe they will soon figure out that the best defense against capsuleers is capsuleers. running pve? have double the chance to get k162. and light a frckin sleeper cyno so we know where the pve fun is.

as for fortress systems. yes they are very very hard to siege and get alliances out off. however, the amount of work to setting them up is insane. and also, we dont care. we want to fight, not evict. why fight over a wh system? its useless. there are plenty of others. its not like 0sec where the system itself has its value.

now that ive typed all this, can i have alliance bookmarks? awesome.
Corian Teranos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#103 - 2012-12-07 04:16:07 UTC
I agree that mass limits should not be touched however i can see a stabilizer preventing natural decay and keeping the wormhole from despawning until it actually collapses.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2012-12-28 05:07:49 UTC
Corian Teranos wrote:
I agree that mass limits should not be touched however i can see a stabilizer preventing natural decay and keeping the wormhole from despawning until it actually collapses.

As a member of a large wormhole alliance, i can tell you stabilizers of any kind are bad, m'kay?

currently the only difficulty in a C6 is logistics, and if we all of a sudden have a way to keep WH's open until we collapse them ourselves, well then, we no longer have to worry about scanning for a highsec to only find EoL's, we cna just lock them open and bring 10-12 bestowers in and out, then force it closed. would make thinsg way too easy.
Anthar Thebess
#105 - 2013-01-03 08:55:31 UTC
Seagrey Raholan
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2013-01-22 11:25:09 UTC
Awesome idea +1
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2013-01-22 19:36:45 UTC

no changes to WH
they are fine

you can add c7+
Viscis Breeze
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2013-01-22 23:02:11 UTC

Recruitment: Website: Channel: No Vacancies

So you want to be a Hero
#109 - 2013-01-24 12:02:05 UTC

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

Atelierele Grivita
#110 - 2013-02-15 13:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: anishamora
Totally supported! WH is NOT nullsec, and no one that lives in WHs wants their systems to become an annex to some nullsec space.

If stabilizers were to be introduced, given enough time, all WHs systems that allow it will have their entrances folded over and over again until they will connect with a desired K-space system (most likely null) and will remain like that. WHs were designed to be dynamic content not some static addition to some nullsec powerbloc which feels crowded in their own home.

Also, in the same way, stabilizers could be used to create permanent K-space shortcuts (for WHs that don't connect with w-space) which brings back super-gating and other issues.
EVE University
Ivy League
#111 - 2013-02-17 04:49:26 UTC
Agreed. Especially when you consider that if someone's willing to invest the ridiculous amount of ISK and time to build a capital ship fleet inside a C1-C4 wormhole, they should be allow to enjoy the safety of their defense.

As well, if we remove the caps, they're going to cause problems with capital ships entering high-sec, and we already know what happened when capitals first showed up in high sec... :P

Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#112 - 2013-02-17 14:22:52 UTC
+1 supported.

I rarely go into WH space but I would not want it turned into another version of a nullsec blobfest
#113 - 2013-02-17 20:49:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sedstr
Supported, no changes to WH mechanics, they are one of, if not, the best designed and well balanced components of the game.


The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2013-04-01 02:39:30 UTC
Aye, I'm not up for doing daily wh op's with red capital ship blobs getting involved... keep it classy please.
Smite Mueller
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2013-06-21 10:32:39 UTC
Just my two cents here.

I would strongly oppose any meddling with WH mass limitations. That is one characteristic that makes WH-Space unique.
Given the latest changes since summer 2012, players can see that EVE is changing from a very complex and skill intense game to a game where one can do a lot more things at the beginning without the need to specialize in a certain trade.
The fun of gaming is suffering from that. Eve does not need more of the occasional WoW/WoT.. players. It needs people who continously play that game. There the game mechanics need to stay balanced.

Unfortunately, CCP has no clue at all how balancing game mechanics works. The changes they implement are way to big. Metaphorically, balancing by CCP is done with a slegdhammer instead of a clockworker's screwdriver...

0.0 Space is fine as long as a resident will be able to go ratting, PI ing and so on. People in 0.0 can "easily" make billions within DAYS!!!! (no, not rat botting, just a few anos and pronto...).

So, 0.0 residents were always rich enough to afford JFs to get their stuff to Jita and come back with other needful things, especially Tritanium.

Now, with ore content changes, even that might change.... Why? 0.0. had already had the best income abilities?

Because some CSMs have strong interests in making 0.0 even more attractive.

WHs are sometimes used by 0.0 corps/alliances to ship stuff into hisec... What a perversion if WH entries could be intentionally manipulated and perpetualized by players....

If that changed, WH space would become a 0.0 appendix... No thanks!

And yes +1 for this petition!
POS need a revamp, surely access management and individual storage possibilities.

But, as we all have our experiences with CCP, any change that will get EVE closer to WOW is going to happen sooner or later....

Unfortunately, CCP do not realize that WoW is dying and therefore cannot not seriously be a role model to be copied...
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#116 - 2013-06-21 14:45:21 UTC
Just for the record, I am very concerned that W-space not be turned into any kind of "0.0" replica. W-space provides an irreplaceable ecology for high-end small-group gameplay, and I will resolutely oppose any change which I perceive to be potentially damaging to that ecology.

Specifically including an over-hasty, emotion-driven nerf to T3s.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016