| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Steve71342
EON Solutions
The Laughing Men
0
   |
Posted - 2011.09.14 18:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
An anchor-able device that would semi permanently hold a wormhole open regardless of the time of the wormhole life and the mass of the ships passing thru.
Make the device destroyable. Once destroyed the devices effect would last for 5 more minutes and a new one could not be put up for 10 minutes. This would allow defensive fleets to close a wormhole that a hostile force is using to enter their system. 10 minute reset would allow the wormhole to die if it had had its time limit or mass limit reached.
LIMITS. Something like this should not be taken lightly. It would drastically change wormhole space. If not properly controlled, it would completely change it. Now on the other hand wormhole space could use some changing. This is where limits come in. Below are listed several limitations that would make this item into something that would not destroy the way of life in wormhole space while still allowing for the awesomeness that would come w/ this device.
Require fuel like a jump bridge.
Only allow one such device to be used between 2 systems.
Require a decently long anchoring time and activation time so that it would be removed by a defensive force before its complete.
Require it to be set up on the k162 side of the wh again to give the defensive force the advantage.
|
Feligast
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 18:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm not sure I support this device removing the mass limit, as that would give all kinds of bad potential consequences in C1-C3 holes. However, I do like the concept of holding a WH open past it's normal life. Maybe once the mass limit is reached, you have a finite time to finish up? Say 2-4 hours? Maybe even require strontium like in a tower reinforcement so the device holder can control that time as well. |
Emperor Salazar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 19:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maybe we should add sov and outposts too.
Or not.
W-space is fine without this sort of hand holding device. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
39
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 19:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lrn2Logistics.
All this does is allow the lesser beings in empire an opportunity to run larger fleets into holes with little to no need to use any of the actual thought processes lying dormant in their brains. Wormhole limits work perfectly fine now as they are. Yes, it adds a bit of planning in some cases, but that's par for the course.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 19:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
no!
Pilot Satisfaction
--
New Ships |
Lianail Deninard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 19:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
I like the idea of extending the duration, but not of removing the mass limit. At best, it should double the mass limit.
I also think it should require a POS link of some sort, so that you have to have a POS on the side you deploy it.
+1/2 |
Sigras
Conglomo
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
7
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 20:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
What about two modules, one that doubles the time and one that doubles the mass, They'd be mutually exclusive and destructible. Also for added danger, if the module were destroyed, the WH it was effecting would immediately collapse. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Atlas.
72
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 22:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Another 8 paragraphs eaten by the new forums. Arrghh. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Atlas.
72
|
Posted - 2011.09.14 23:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'll try and sum up.
1) Yes a WH stablizer could work, but it absolutely should remove mass limits (as in total mass), as the biggest issue facing whs in the future is unlodgeable concentration of capital ships (not frickin' ABC ore)
2) Stable WH-Hisec links would be bad due to to the ease it would make WH logistics and hisec invasions.
3) Stable WH-Null links would be a disaster as it could make a deployment across the galaxy doable in two jumps.
4) Stable WH-WH links would be a good addition as it could let growing wh alliances create 'webways' of their own design and launch large invasions into rival wh alliances, but these expansions would be tempered by the fact their tenuous networks could be severed indefinitely (or until a new link is found), while simultaneously allowing for a reduction in capital buildup.
5) Stable WH-Low links could be interesting as it balances a stable link for WH groups and empire against the local pirates that this activity would draw in, or an enterprising piracy group to invade a specific wh system proper that can't be arsed to destroy the stab.
6) The real challenge involved is to make these stabilizers (I liked the term "Hypereuclidian Dilater" myself) vulnerable enough to attack (much softer then an SBU) for the average small wh corp, while allowing the stab's owners a fair chance to defend their structure against a larger one, all while keeping structure grinds and tz wars outside of w-space which I can hope everyone else agrees upon. |
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
250
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 00:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
the difficulty in logistics and movement is what makes w-space what it is
removing that just invites the blob |
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
9
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 00:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
So basically you want null style sov war blobbing to shoot structures in wspace? |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 07:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
I don't really like the idea of infinite mass on any wormhole. Extending life, at the cost of fuel is an idea I can get behind. Perhaps, instead of infinite total mass, a regeneration effect?
Aside from that, Nicolo pointed out several great ideas:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:I'll try and sum up.
1) Yes a WH stablizer could work, but it absolutely should remove mass limits (as in total mass), as the biggest issue facing whs in the future is unlodgeable concentration of capital ships (not frickin' ABC ore)
2) Stable WH-Hisec links would be bad due to to the ease it would make WH logistics and hisec invasions.
3) Stable WH-Null links would be a disaster as it could make a deployment across the galaxy doable in two jumps.
4) Stable WH-WH links would be a good addition as it could let growing wh alliances create 'webways' of their own design to expand their resources and/or launch large invasions into rival wh alliances, but these expansions would be tempered by the fact their tenuous networks could be severed indefinitely (or until a new link is found) with their assets stranded if they left them there, while simultaneously allowing for a reduction in capital buildup.
5) Stable WH-Low links could be interesting as it balances a stable link for WH groups and empire against the local pirates that this activity would draw in, or an enterprising piracy group to invade a specific wh system proper that can't be arsed to destroy the stab.
6) The real challenge involved is to make these stabilizers (I liked the term "Hypereuclidian Dilater" myself) vulnerable enough to attack (much softer then an SBU) for the average small wh corp, while allowing the stab's owners a fair chance to defend their structure against a larger one, all while keeping structure grinds and tz wars outside of w-space which I can hope everyone else agrees upon. I could never figure out a satisfactory solution, which is why I never made this thread myself.
This type of module should be limited to WH-Low or WH-WH only. And it would definitely be cool for large Wormhole alliances spread across several systems.
We have a blog, it is terrible.
How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
41
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 12:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:I don't really like the idea of infinite mass on any wormhole. Extending life, at the cost of fuel is an idea I can get behind. Perhaps, instead of infinite total mass, a regeneration effect? Aside from that, Nicolo pointed out several great ideas: Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:I'll try and sum up.
1) Yes a WH stablizer could work, but it absolutely should remove mass limits (as in total mass), as the biggest issue facing whs in the future is unlodgeable concentration of capital ships (not frickin' ABC ore)
2) Stable WH-Hisec links would be bad due to to the ease it would make WH logistics and hisec invasions.
3) Stable WH-Null links would be a disaster as it could make a deployment across the galaxy doable in two jumps.
4) Stable WH-WH links would be a good addition as it could let growing wh alliances create 'webways' of their own design to expand their resources and/or launch large invasions into rival wh alliances, but these expansions would be tempered by the fact their tenuous networks could be severed indefinitely (or until a new link is found) with their assets stranded if they left them there, while simultaneously allowing for a reduction in capital buildup.
5) Stable WH-Low links could be interesting as it balances a stable link for WH groups and empire against the local pirates that this activity would draw in, or an enterprising piracy group to invade a specific wh system proper that can't be arsed to destroy the stab.
6) The real challenge involved is to make these stabilizers (I liked the term "Hypereuclidian Dilater" myself) vulnerable enough to attack (much softer then an SBU) for the average small wh corp, while allowing the stab's owners a fair chance to defend their structure against a larger one, all while keeping structure grinds and tz wars outside of w-space which I can hope everyone else agrees upon. I could never figure out a satisfactory solution, which is why I never made this thread myself. This type of module should be limited to WH-Low or WH-WH only. And it would definitely be cool for large Wormhole alliances spread across several systems.
Flat out no. This would suck horribly and would turn wormholes into the crap that generic null currently is.
Here's a little bit of information for you... there already are wormhole alliances spread across several systems. We don't need trails of flower petals lining the paths between them to function quite well, thank you.
Stay the frak in empire where you belong if you think this is a good idea.
Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Atlas.
74
|
Posted - 2011.09.15 17:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Flat out no. This would suck horribly and would turn wormholes into the crap that generic null currently is.
How so? |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |