Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1372
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:08:48 -
[1] - Quote
With the dev blog out here
An idea's been brought forward for a new wh one with a low total mass that would go C5 and C6 to null and null to C5 and C6.
These could potentially be added in greater numbers than the ones lost in the dev blog. so you would actually get more connections to and from null than you have at present.
Inital numbers i'm thinking of is something like total mass 400 - 500 and max mass 300 and 24 hour life time.
Credit for the inital idea should go to Keskora Yaari. Moans might as well go to me.
feel free to comment.
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
TurboX3
Hax. Wrecked.
129
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:15:02 -
[2] - Quote
OMG I just wrote this idea on this forum post --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=432168&p=4
I do believe a C5 or C6 should have a static Null !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) It would create more content for us wormhole living anal probers!
No Trolling Please
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1475
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:23:30 -
[3] - Quote
Kes is a good gal.
Are we talking about a mass cap (like no more than a battleship size), or a mass limit (15 t3 and its dead)?
Edit (aah you put the numbers in).
Yaay!!!!
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
137
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:39:32 -
[4] - Quote
<3 Phoenix
Yeah the idea is that it has the same jump restrictions as your standard c2/c3/c4 wormhole but it has very little total mass. So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Ideally it would work to increase roams and day tripping but it would keep people from using it as a bridge between systems. Also, having to make a more tactical decisions about what jumps through would make for some potentially interesting engagements. I'll yolo t1 battleships all day if it means fun fights :) |
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.
NO ... in fact HELL NO
It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer |
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:50:13 -
[6] - Quote
Keskora Yaari wrote:<3 Phoenix
Yeah the idea is that it has the same jump restrictions as your standard c2/c3/c4 wormhole but it has very little total mass. So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Ideally it would work to increase roams and day tripping but it would keep people from using it as a bridge between systems. Also, having to make a more tactical decisions about what jumps through would make for some potentially interesting engagements. I'll yolo t1 battleships all day if it means fun fights :)
With 1 or 2 Battleships being able to collapse the connection it may be worth while sharing an account to keep a watch just to make sure the WH stays in your region of space
you know just in case it looks like you may be open for a fight and need to get enough pilots in to blob the attackers.....
|
Quiggle Queue
POS Party Low-Class
32
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:51:50 -
[7] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:
It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer
Except that he just stated the idea came from Keskora Yaari, who is a wormholer :) |
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1373
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:52:55 -
[8] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:Keskora Yaari wrote:<3 Phoenix
Yeah the idea is that it has the same jump restrictions as your standard c2/c3/c4 wormhole but it has very little total mass. So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Ideally it would work to increase roams and day tripping but it would keep people from using it as a bridge between systems. Also, having to make a more tactical decisions about what jumps through would make for some potentially interesting engagements. I'll yolo t1 battleships all day if it means fun fights :) With 1 or 2 Battleships being able to collapse the connection it may be worth while sharing an account to keep a watch just to make sure the WH stays in your region of space you know just in case it looks like you may be open for a fight and need to get enough pilots in to blob the attackers.....
ok just for you we'll make it no bs, there happy it would be much harder to collapse then. what about regenative mass want that on as well?
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
139
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:52:56 -
[9] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.
NO ... in fact HELL NO
It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer
These aren't statics - they would be wandering wormholes. If they collapse they are gone and another one does not spawn |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1477
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:54:38 -
[10] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.
NO ... in fact HELL NO
It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer
So your concern is that a nullsec group will obtain the ability to go pve in a c5 and c6?
They can't fit a dread, there pve ships will be marauders or t3's, they can gas mine. They can't do escalations.
Considering the amount of dead c6 space there is and the virtual non-existence of null people running wormhole sites vs carrier ratting....
Maybe I'm wrong and there are nullsec groups that jump at the idea of nomadding in c5 and c6 space to gain dank ISk vs ratting anoms in stationed systems with emergency cyno Alts and local for 8 hours.
I'm sure i am missing the exact concern. If you can spell it out it would help us a bit better.
Yaay!!!!
|
|
Quiggle Queue
POS Party Low-Class
32
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:55:02 -
[11] - Quote
These kind of ideas are what will keep wormhole space, and the rest of the universe more dynamic and ever changing. Roaming connections are awesome in general. |
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
140
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:58:12 -
[12] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Iowa Banshee wrote:....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.
NO ... in fact HELL NO
It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer So your concern is that a nullsec group will obtain the ability to go pve in a c5 and c6? They can't fit a dread, there pve ships will be marauders or t3's, they can gas mine. They can't do escalations. Considering the amount of dead c6 space there is and the virtual non-existence of null people running wormhole sites vs carrier ratting.... Maybe I'm wrong and there are nullsec groups that jump at the idea of nomadding in c5 and c6 space to gain dank ISk vs ratting anoms in stationed systems with emergency cyno Alts and local for 8 hours. I'm sure i am missing the exact concern. If you can spell it out it would help us a bit better.
i think they are thinking that these new wormholes would be statics to a c5/c6. So if they move into one to farm with dreads/carriers they can repeatedly roll it to get the best NS connection. But these are not statics - they are wandering so if you roll one you would just have to hope that another spawns. With that in mind I don't think his argument really works.
|
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:05:54 -
[13] - Quote
Keskora Yaari wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Iowa Banshee wrote:....... and from the Null perspective - Its so much easier to roll a small static back to your area of null space should you want to go into the C5 & C6 farming business.
NO ... in fact HELL NO
It's almost sounds like the OP has been coached by a null alliance propaganda officer So your concern is that a nullsec group will obtain the ability to go pve in a c5 and c6? They can't fit a dread, there pve ships will be marauders or t3's, they can gas mine. They can't do escalations. Considering the amount of dead c6 space there is and the virtual non-existence of null people running wormhole sites vs carrier ratting.... Maybe I'm wrong and there are nullsec groups that jump at the idea of nomadding in c5 and c6 space to gain dank ISk vs ratting anoms in stationed systems with emergency cyno Alts and local for 8 hours. I'm sure i am missing the exact concern. If you can spell it out it would help us a bit better. i think they are thinking that these new wormholes would be statics to a c5/c6. So if they move into one to farm with dreads/carriers they can repeatedly roll it to get the best NS connection. But these are not statics - they are wandering so if you roll one you would just have to hope that another spawns. With that in mind I don't think his argument really works.
You are right I did think more statics were being proposed -- which would be bad
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
140
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:10:06 -
[14] - Quote
Iowa Banshee wrote:
You are right I did think more statics were being proposed -- which would be bad
Agreed! That would be horrible haha
|
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
699
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:16:37 -
[15] - Quote
Keskora Yaari wrote:So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.
SSC Brokering Service
|
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
140
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:35:01 -
[16] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote: Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.
How many do you think would be a good amount? Enough to be able to take fights but not so many that you can blob or move an entire corp worth of people |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
700
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:44:20 -
[17] - Quote
Keskora Yaari wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote: Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region. How many do you think would be a good amount? Enough to be able to take fights but not so many that you can blob or move an entire corp worth of people Thats a great a question and I dont have a good answer. It varies too much and theres an overlap in numbers of people between killing ratting carriers and moving blobs around. Not to mention the increased hassle of moving caps. Or smaller chance of us helping each other out against nullbears.
And, tbh, as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with people using wormholes to move their blobs around. Do any wormholers have issues with nullsec holes being able to carry a blob?
Whatever the end result (fewer holes or smaller holes), we are going to end up with fewer opportunities to kill things in null. So yeah... op success.
SSC Brokering Service
|
MooMooDachshundCow
Incertae Sedis
250
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:04:17 -
[18] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Keskora Yaari wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote: Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region. How many do you think would be a good amount? Enough to be able to take fights but not so many that you can blob or move an entire corp worth of people Thats a great a question and I dont have a good answer. It varies too much and theres an overlap in numbers of people between killing ratting carriers and moving blobs around. Not to mention the increased hassle of moving caps. Or smaller chance of us helping each other out against nullbears. And, tbh, as far as I am concerned, I have no problem with people using wormholes to move their blobs around. Do any wormholers have issues with nullsec holes being able to carry a blob? Whatever the end result (fewer holes or smaller holes), we are going to end up with fewer opportunities to kill things in null (again). So yeah... op success.
Having more connections to null from WH space is not going to lead to fewer opportunities, that's ridiculous. The mass restrictions are perhaps a bit low, but would be suitable for small gang roams. If you have more than 20 cruisers are you still a small gang? Maybe by null standards. That is of course a very low number, but perhaps operations launched from one of these holes would increase inter-corp cooperation since you'd need another connection to bring more dudes, maybe you'd batphone?
I guess the question is "What's enough mass to be able to take fights?".
Yeah, well, it's just like my-áopinion, man.
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:15:13 -
[19] - Quote
Replacing the lost z142s/n432s with E545s (2 bil/300 max jump and 24hr) or k346/h900 (3 bil/300/24hr) would help. Even a z060 (1 bil/20 max/24 hr) would be better than losing a door, however it would be nice to have more reasons to fly battleships rather than fewer. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
704
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:20:51 -
[20] - Quote
MooMooDachshundCow wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote: Whatever the end result (fewer holes or smaller holes), we are going to end up with fewer opportunities to kill things in null (again). So yeah... op success.
Having more connections to null from WH space is not going to lead to fewer opportunities, that's ridiculous. The mass restrictions are perhaps a bit low, but would be suitable for small gang roams. If you have more than 20 cruisers are you still a small gang? Maybe by null standards. That is of course a very low number, but perhaps operations launched from one of these holes would increase inter-corp cooperation since you'd need another connection to bring more dudes, maybe you'd batphone? I guess the question is "What's enough mass to be able to take fights?". As it stands now, they are removing some connections to null. Per corbexx, we "might" get some smaller, limited-mass holes back. Maybe, perhaps, who knows, we'll see. So right now and for foreseeable future, we are losing opportunities to kill stuff.
How much is enough? That depends. You dont need much to kill afk ishtar. You need quite a bit more to kill a super + support. Either way, it sucks to be us.
SSC Brokering Service
|
|
Pax Deltari
R3d Fire
18
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:25:56 -
[21] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:Keskora Yaari wrote:So you can take say, a dozen cruisers through it and back or 1 battleship both ways before it collapses. Thats not really enough to roam out and kill ratters in an active region.
I would imagine 6 cruisers is more than enough to take out ratters.... and site runners. (Not Caps though I agree.) |
Keskora Yaari
POS Party Low-Class
143
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:33:38 -
[22] - Quote
if you can take out a fleet of say 15-20 people you can easily kill a ratting carrier. We took one down with 9 battlecruisers and a geddon once. Switch out that geddon for say, 3 neut legions and there you go. But I don't think of this as a way to replace the lower spawn rate of existing null connections (though the reduced amount doesn't sound like a ton imo). This would be more of a supplement - a new option to offer more opportunities to roam and get fights. You just have to maybe be more tactical/resourceful in order to take ALL fights.
Or you take out two dozen people and just let the hole collapse and scan a new way home. That's always an option too. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
706
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:47:39 -
[23] - Quote
If some new low-mass holes were an addition to the present state (like frigholes were) , that would be great. But it seems, that at best these would be a sort of band-aid to cushion the nerf that is about to hit us (fewer NS holes which last shorter time). A nerf with aboslutely no gameplay benefit for us, I might add.
SSC Brokering Service
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:00:40 -
[24] - Quote
C5 chains in the US timezone have been dead and dull for over a year now. The frequent null access has been the redeaming feature. For my corp at least, the z142s are not an additional feature of the space; they are very much why we live where we do and are a highly valued main attraction. Cutting the sleeper site spawn rate to 10% of the current value would be less anoying than limiting travel to null. |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
160
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:44:42 -
[25] - Quote
Is there a good reason to exclude battleships? Besides keeping the overall mass low. If BS are allowed I think jumpmass should be below higgsrigged BS since they are only used for closing it anyways. For the same reason maxmass should be above 2 times BS so it doesn-¦t jus die in one go.
Of course that would also mean 25+ cruisers passable, so enough to kill a carrier and a good number for all but the biggest wormholecorps.
But adding them will allow PL again to mess with people all around Eve just instead of 50 Ishtars they-¦d use D3s or interceptors. Not that I have a problem with this but isn-¦t that the reason for the nerf in the first place? |
Alexis Nightwish
308
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:55:50 -
[26] - Quote
I'm not for or against this idea so much as I don't see the point.
NS won't use it because it's too small to allow for escalations, and even if it were, NS isn't known for day tripping into WH. Especially now that Fozzie is giving all his nullbros 75% more anoms per system there is just no point in leaving the safety of your ratting space when PvE is literally delivered directly to you.
WH won't be able to leverage this well because in Fozziesov all the groups will be in super dense little areas, all of which are within the 5ly safety net of their alliance jump bridge network. If a carrier is tackled (assuming of course the intel doesn't alert him, or the local spike doesn't clue him in) he just lights a cyno and drops the alliance's collective hammer on the small force that would be able to squeeze through these proposed new wormholes.
So, like I said, I just don't see the point.
Now if this was like a big brother to frig holes in that the mass was low (low for a C5/C6/Null anyway), but the max mass regenerated so fast that collapsing it was impossible, that may be interesting. Maybe it would get more BS flying, and more ratters dying. Maybe.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
225
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:07:09 -
[27] - Quote
If they are meant as an addition to the Z142s we have now, sure why not?
As a replacement? Hell no!
There are a lot of things you could not do through those holes... -Using Black Ops. -Dropping a dread when a tackled ratting carrier starts spawning additional carriers. -Evacing your caps when you went Bhaals deep somewhere -Seeding caps (not sure how to feel about that one - we usually don't do this, but it would certainly affect w-space in a way)
400kt mass is roughly 15 cruisers. (If you want to get back home) Even for us that would get very tight on some days and we are not an especially large corp. It would also mean that you can't go out through that connection a second time when the nullbears have respawned in their sites. |
Quiggle Queue
POS Party Low-Class
32
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:11:44 -
[28] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:I'm not for or against this idea so much as I don't see the point.
NS won't use it because it's too small to allow for escalations, and even if it were, NS isn't known for day tripping into WH. Especially now that Fozzie is giving all his nullbros 75% more anoms per system there is just no point in leaving the safety of your ratting space when PvE is literally delivered directly to you.
WH won't be able to leverage this well because in Fozziesov all the groups will be in super dense little areas, all of which are within the 5ly safety net of their alliance jump bridge network. If a carrier is tackled (assuming of course the intel doesn't alert him, or the local spike doesn't clue him in) he just lights a cyno and drops the alliance's collective hammer on the small force that would be able to squeeze through these proposed new wormholes.
So, like I said, I just don't see the point.
Now if this was like a big brother to frig holes in that the allowable mass was low (low for a C5/C6/Null anyway), but the mass regenerated so fast that collapsing it was impossible, that may be interesting. Maybe it would get more BS flying, and more ratters dying. Maybe.
Right now, the current null-sec powers are cuddled up in their corners, but I think after the sov mechanics change, there will be people out there taking and contesting sov in a more widespread fashion. |
Alexis Nightwish
308
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:20:39 -
[29] - Quote
Quiggle Queue wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:I'm not for or against this idea so much as I don't see the point.
NS won't use it because it's too small to allow for escalations, and even if it were, NS isn't known for day tripping into WH. Especially now that Fozzie is giving all his nullbros 75% more anoms per system there is just no point in leaving the safety of your ratting space when PvE is literally delivered directly to you.
WH won't be able to leverage this well because in Fozziesov all the groups will be in super dense little areas, all of which are within the 5ly safety net of their alliance jump bridge network. If a carrier is tackled (assuming of course the intel doesn't alert him, or the local spike doesn't clue him in) he just lights a cyno and drops the alliance's collective hammer on the small force that would be able to squeeze through these proposed new wormholes.
So, like I said, I just don't see the point.
Now if this was like a big brother to frig holes in that the allowable mass was low (low for a C5/C6/Null anyway), but the mass regenerated so fast that collapsing it was impossible, that may be interesting. Maybe it would get more BS flying, and more ratters dying. Maybe. Right now, the current null-sec powers are cuddled up in their corners, but I think after the sov mechanics change, there will be people out there taking and contesting sov in a more widespread fashion. I don't agree, but I'm not going to derail the thread over it
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
corbexx
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1374
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:29:33 -
[30] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Is there a good reason to exclude battleships? Besides keeping the overall mass low. If BS are allowed I think jumpmass should be below higgsrigged BS since they are only used for closing it anyways. For the same reason maxmass should be above 2 times BS so it doesn-¦t jus die in one go.
Of course that would also mean 25+ cruisers passable, so enough to kill a carrier and a good number for all but the biggest wormholecorps.
But adding them will allow PL again to mess with people all around Eve just instead of 50 Ishtars they-¦d use D3s or interceptors. Not that I have a problem with this but isn-¦t that the reason for the nerf in the first place?
the reason for no bs was cos Iowa Banshee thought it woudl make it to easy for nullsec (grr goon) to collaspe, i'm happy with what ever w space thinks best
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |