Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 10:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
im going to suggest this in here because this is where wormholes are likely to read it. If the thread takes off and there is some good discussion maybe it can be moved to Features and Ideas forum... We all know that c2's have multiple statics which is great but my question is why only c2's?
Currently in wormholes there is very little reason to fight over a system because you can probably find another system with the same effect and same static thats empty. If there was some c5's or c3's for example with multiple statics there might be some reason to fight over them.
Most of the time when scanning a chain from the c5 i live in it just goes from static to static eventually leading to k-space, its just a straght line which can only be scanned efficiently by 1-2 people.
I would love to see a wormhole chain that branched all over the place where there was more wormholes than 2 people could scan at a time and you could literally send out a swarm of scanners can be connected to 10,15,20 wormholes all at once.
So anyone know the reasoning why only c2's have multiple statics? would others like to see other wormholes have multiple statics or is it just me?
Benefits: - Multiple wormhole chains, more variety - More difficult to wall off a so called 'fortress wormhole' - I ncreased chance of PvP and encountering other players
Problems: - Changing existing wormholes may give current owners an advantage due to luck ??? help me out guys |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
It's not just you,
Two_step also mentioned this in one of his previous blogs, and I'm assuming he's probably bugging CCP devs about this on occasion ;)
I myself would also like it if CCP would seed some extra static wormholes in some of the higher up systems since I like to meet new people and all that.
|
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
yeah it would be good to live in a wormhole with multiple statics in a high class wormhole ^^
im gonna try find his blog post about the issue |
Kalel Nimrott
Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail
6
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Do you mean the same type of static or different ones like in a C2? |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Do you mean the same type of static or different ones like in a C2?
why not both? variety is the spice of life!
but most likely different statics would be great. like haveing a c5 with static c5/c6 or c5 with c3/c5 etc... |
LumiLa
Aperture Harmonics K162
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
This is a highly desired feature. you can make isk down one chain, and then loose it down the other one. |
Efraya
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
I thought the suggestion was something along the lines of:
"If you collapse your static, there is a %age chance for a random incident wormhole to spawn"
More connections == More action
WSpace; Best space. |
Efraya
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
99
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 12:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Oxandrolone wrote: So anyone know the reasoning why only c2's have multiple statics? would others like to see other wormholes have multiple statics or is it just me?
They are the crossroad wh's. They always have 1 K-Space and 1 W-Space static.
C3's always have a k space.
C1's can have K-Space or W-Space static. Only one or the other.
WSpace; Best space. |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
a potential problem would be changeing the statics of already populated wormholes, some corps might get lucky and get an extra static in their wormhole so i think if this was a feature that actually got implemented eventually they should add new wormholes and delete wormholes that are unocupied to counteract this. |
Kyros Xero
Xuronautics
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 14:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Efraya wrote:
They are the crossroad wh's. They always have 1 K-Space and 1 W-Space static.
C3's always have a k space.
C1's can have K-Space or W-Space static. Only one or the other.
Can C1s really have a w-space static? I was under the impression that my dream of a C1 with a C1 static was not possible. POS Layered Defenses: "Panic" mode and defense-automation arrays |
|
Chitsa Jason
High Intellion Exhale.
120
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 15:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
Multiple statics would be nice especially for C4s |
Hathrul
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
86
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 15:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
double ALL the statics! maybe not c3 and 1 because that would change the reason i assume people live in them and have a massive impact on residents. but If every wormhole had 2 statics instead of 1, both of the same type maybe, it would be a lot better :) |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 16:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Oxandrolone wrote:a potential problem would be changeing the statics of already populated wormholes
I'd be concerned about this as well
what i'd probably want is (one or several of the below):
a) A POCO-like system that let you choose another type of static. You anchor a structure at a specific location in-system, it lets you choose a static type from reasonable lists of statics (no static highs from c5/c6s, for example :P ) and has some sort of maintenance/fuel requirement to keep that static active.
I like this one because it adds a bit of ~mystery~ to the whole thing; you can't just look up on the intertubes which extra statics a system has, it involves some figuring and intel, and it adds a nice point of contention to w-space.
b) Add new w-space regions of the same classes that exist now, but with no moons and extra statics. Add 1 new c6 region, couple of new regions for the other wh classes per each. They kinda become the true wilderness territory that no man can own.
c) Like b), but add a new higher class of wormhole systems with lots of extra statics and no moons. They become a sort of 'communal backyard' for w-space to meet and shoot each other in the face. |
Bishops Guest
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 17:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Rather than having systems with two statics, make the statics more random. Say, instead of a system with a C5 static, a system where the static goes to different parts of w-space on each roll. Say, C6 10% of the time, C5 50% of the time and C4 30% of the time and spawn 2 statics 10% of the time. (In the case of 2 statics, a new one will not spawn until both are gone. Keep the dynamics spawning as well.
I would like to see the clusters get a bit more tangled, but more importantly, I think it would be fun if they were more random. |
seany1212
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
166
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 18:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
Bishops Guest wrote:Rather than having systems with two statics, make the statics more random. Say, instead of a system with a C5 static, a system where the static goes to different parts of w-space on each roll. Say, C6 10% of the time, C5 50% of the time and C4 30% of the time and spawn 2 statics 10% of the time. (In the case of 2 statics, a new one will not spawn until both are gone. Keep the dynamics spawning as well.
I would like to see the clusters get a bit more tangled, but more importantly, I think it would be fun if they were more random.
Agreeing with dynamic statics (yes yes, oxymoron), but it would be interesting for those c1 inhabitants to occasionally get c6 spawns and such. Just do it based along the lines of bishops idea where normally a c1 with a static high gets that high 75% of the time and then random classes there after |
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
20
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 19:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
More dynamics are what is needed IMO, and I want them rising and falling with time.
Like triple the amount of dynamics in one constellation one week, moving to another constellation the next week, it would spice up the standard fare, having to deal with living in a highway one week, to being closed off and having trouble with logistics the next. |
Bishops Guest
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
19
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 22:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ampoliros wrote:c) Like b), but add a new higher class of wormhole systems with lots of extra statics and no moons. They become a sort of 'communal backyard' for w-space to meet and shoot each other in the face. How about moving some of the sites to only those systems. Maybe highend ladars will only spawn in the backyard systems. (Or just spawn a lot more frequently.) Give people a reason to try and lock them down and control them while they are connected besides just good fights. (They should also have more dynamics into them) |
discordigant
Doomheim
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 00:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
I like the idea of more statics on holes to give other options, but i wouldn't support an idea that gives high class holes a K-space static. That would stop other people having the chance to gank all your loots and just allow easy logistics and would lead to noobville in C4-6's. |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 10:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
I personally dont like the idea of allowing people to choose the static of a wormhole, i dont see wormholes as being something thats player controlled. If new wormholes were added to the game with multiple statics it would make groups have to make a choice if they want to fight over and eventually move to the new systems.
If you think about this from a designers point of view changeing the code to give wormholes another static is relitively simple compared to creating a new type of module and interface to allow people to choose their own static. The more i think about choosing a static the more i think its ridiculous lol. |
Talonaer
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 11:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
1) More random "constellation" statics spawning. You probably get one of these every 2-3 weeks on average. 2) Love the idea of the systems static destination having a random profile: 10% c5, 50% c4, 40% c3.
WH's are pretty predictable and scanning your home system every few hours with a Deep Space Probe ensures you know whats going on all the time frankly. |
|
Frau Leinsmarch
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 04:45:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ampoliros wrote:Oxandrolone wrote:a potential problem would be changeing the statics of already populated wormholes c) Like b), but add a new higher class of wormhole systems with lots of extra statics and no moons. They become a sort of 'communal backyard' for w-space to meet and shoot each other in the face.
This is somthing we've been disscussing alot lately.
I would like to see the implementation of a C7 system, containing no moons and possibly 2 of each wormspace static(eg C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) This would then act as a focus point for WH PvP.
Of course there wouldn't be any wormholes with Static 7 as that would give an unfair advantage.
I think allowing people to pick and choose their statics is kinda against the WH environment. Whilst adding random statics to people's holes could cause problems for people, whats to say that they couldn't move?
Perhaps if they didn't add additional statics but just increased the spawn rate of random wormholes in systems, this would make for a more interesting environment whilst still allowing people to close holes that they dont like.
|
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 05:29:00 -
[22] - Quote
Oxandrolone wrote:im going to suggest this in here because this is where wormholes are likely to read it. If the thread takes off and there is some good discussion maybe it can be moved to Features and Ideas forum... We all know that c2's have multiple statics which is great but my question is why only c2's?
Currently in wormholes there is very little reason to fight over a system because you can probably find another system with the same effect and same static thats empty. If there was some c5's or c3's for example with multiple statics there might be some reason to fight over them.
Most of the time when scanning a chain from the c5 i live in it just goes from static to static eventually leading to k-space, its just a straght line which can only be scanned efficiently by 1-2 people.
I would love to see a wormhole chain that branched all over the place where there was more wormholes than 2 people could scan at a time and you could literally send out a swarm of scanners can be connected to 10,15,20 wormholes all at once.
So anyone know the reasoning why only c2's have multiple statics? would others like to see other wormholes have multiple statics or is it just me?
Benefits: - Multiple wormhole chains, more variety - More difficult to wall off a so called 'fortress wormhole' - I ncreased chance of PvP and encountering other players
Problems: - Changing existing wormholes may give current owners an advantage due to luck ??? help me out guys
The only way I'd go for this is if they double or triple the number of wormspace systems I already feel there isn't enough wormspace. |
Nendail Smith
Lockheed Nighthawk
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 05:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
Frau Leinsmarch wrote:Ampoliros wrote:Oxandrolone wrote:a potential problem would be changeing the statics of already populated wormholes c) Like b), but add a new higher class of wormhole systems with lots of extra statics and no moons. They become a sort of 'communal backyard' for w-space to meet and shoot each other in the face. This is somthing we've been disscussing alot lately. I would like to see the implementation of a C7 system, containing no moons and possibly 2 of each wormspace static(eg C1,C2,C3,C4,C5) This would then act as a focus point for WH PvP. Of course there wouldn't be any wormholes with Static 7 as that would give an unfair advantage. I think allowing people to pick and choose their statics is kinda against the WH environment. Whilst adding random statics to people's holes could cause problems for people, whats to say that they couldn't move? Perhaps if they didn't add additional statics but just increased the spawn rate of random wormholes in systems, this would make for a more interesting environment whilst still allowing people to close holes that they dont like.
this sort of c7 wouldn't get my vote. You'd have to get lucky to get in, and whoever was in the c7 would have a huge tactical advantage over every other system. Both in protecting their system and in launching attacks. |
Leontyne Gaterau
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
50
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 12:08:00 -
[24] - Quote
I need a cold shower after thinking about a C5->C5/C3. |
Lexylia
1ST GERMAN POPPLERS CORPORATION
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 13:15:00 -
[25] - Quote
I like the idea of a Full random wh there the exit is random mean can lead into c1,c2,c3,c4,c5 or c6 :D would be so nice |
Myz Toyou
Bite Me inc Exhale.
94
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 13:17:00 -
[26] - Quote
Leontyne Gaterau wrote:I need a cold shower after thinking about a C5->C5/C3.
|
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Exhale.
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.29 23:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Nendail Smith wrote:
The only way I'd go for this is if they double or triple the number of wormspace systems I already feel there isn't enough wormspace.
completely disagree, most wormholes we open onto are empty or just have a few pos's and floaty ships. there almost all empty or inactive, adding more wormholes just makes this even worse...
|
Bane Nucleus
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 00:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
The last thing I would think we want is CCP making crazy changes to wh space. Lets get a better system for POS's before we even think about messing with statics. |
discordigant
Doomheim
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 00:12:00 -
[29] - Quote
Bane Nucleus wrote:The last thing I would think we want is CCP making crazy changes to wh space. Lets get a better system for POS's before we even think about messing with statics.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
337
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 02:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
I agree with the OP; it would be nice to have some more connections in wormholes aside from C2's. We live in a C2 because you do get the branching wormhole chains to scan out; I also treat hisec as a branching wormhole chain where some of your systems don't have wormholes.
Adding second statics to higher-end wormholes would change the dynamics significantly, for the better in my opinion. C5 space can often be "turtles all the way down", which results in serial static rolling to actually get fights, or a k-space exit.
I don't think that a bit of chaos during implementation is a bad thing. The advent of PI saw quite a bit of conflict in C4 to C1 space as people who previously thought their 4 planet system was fine suddenly yearned for more riches, and went looking for the mythical 3 plasma C1 known affectionately as "robotron". This also goes for C5's, tbh, because PI fuel capability is important in the deep rabbit hole.
So, if you suddenly get a second static and your C5>C2 gets a C3, you may decide this is too lame and leave, or find somene else is quite a bit happier punching your donuts for that configuration and you end up fighting. I can't see how this is a more adverse effect that some of the stuff CCP has just invented into the game recently.
But my biggest pet peeve are C4's. You never, ever get a damn k-space connection in C4 space. Its easier to do logistics in a C6 because you connect to C5's which get k-space to hisec, and voila, a freighter full of fuel. C4's, you're frever doing hauler runs with fuels via your statics - and f you're stupid enough to live in C4>C4 you see why this constealltion is 90% empty.
The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |