|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1409
   |
Posted - 2014.03.13 18:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
People get slammed when they suggest this mate, so you are not the first the open yourself up to the upcoming flaming.
Here is what i want:
Rek Seven wrote:
Wormhole Generator (WG)
A lot of people seem to be asking CCP to add duel statics to some wormholes that currently only have one. Instead of CCP forcing this change, why not put the choice in the players hands?
Here's a feature list describing how it could work:
1. The WG is manufactured using sleeper salvage
2. Can only be deployed in wormhole space
3. Can only be deployed at the sun
4. One WG allowed per system
5. 15 minuet spool up and shutdown time
6. Can be activated by someone in the owning corp that has required roles (anyone can pass through it)
7. System wide notification when new wormhole generation in initiated
8. 23 hour reinforce time
9. Hit points: Shield= 5,000,000 - Armor= 1,250,000 - Structure= 1,000,000
10. Drops sleeper salvage if destroyed
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1411
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 08:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Glyndi wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Bane Nucleus wrote:While I like the idea of more wormholes, I don't think a player influenced approach is the way to go. Maybe CCP can allow the wormhole environment to produce more random connections to random wormholes. This would still allow more options as far as where to go, while still leaving the randomness of wormholes intact. I disagree. IMO player created content is better than random mechanics. Players create content using those random mechanics, them being random adds to the excitement of logging in everyday. Opening and closing WH's via module on demand is a terrible idea.
Isn't that essentially what we do when we collapse wormholes with mass?
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1411
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 09:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Glyndi wrote:Rek Seven wrote:
Isn't that essentially what we do when we collapse wormholes with mass?
If you had a module that created a wormhole, the connection would still be random. All it would be doing is replicating the process of chain rolling in a way that is accessible to everyone.
Increasing the spawn rate of wondering wormholes would affect everyone in wormhole space, so much so that is could drive some people out.
How would increasing a random spawn be more harmful then a bunch of players opening WHs at their will which isn't random at all? Rolling the static already function in this way, why have a module that does the exact same thing. In theory you could have one group rolling the static and another in the same hole opening up WHs with a module. Sounds like this would affect way more people because it's not random at all.
I guess it wouldn't be anymore harmful really.
Whether you roll a wormhole or use a module to create one, you would still be randomly connecting to another system.
Increasing wandering wormholes would be a pretty boring change IMO. If CCP introduce a wormhole generator, they would achieve the same goal but we would also have a new structure to attack and fight over and people would stop asking for duel static to be added to c4-c6 wormholes.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1411
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 09:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Try reading the third paragraph. I sneakily hid the answer to your question way down there. 
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1411
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 10:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm thinking more along the lines of the wormhole generator i described on the first page. That structure would drop sleeper loot and if someone was threatening to take away your ability to create a second static, most people would fight over that.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1414
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 13:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
The Cue wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Increasing wandering wormholes would be a pretty boring change IMO. If CCP introduce a wormhole generator, they would achieve the same goal but we would also have a new structure to attack and fight over and people would stop asking for duel static to be added to c4-c6 wormholes. Increasing dynamic connections would increase the number of connections without removing the probing structure of play that is required by WH space.
True but a wormhole generator would not decrease the need to probe either, (combat scan) plus it would introduce the other features that i listed.
I don't think CCP should change the current mechanics (apart from black holes), instead i would like them to give players the tools to augment the game/mechanics to achieve the goals we are talking about.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1414
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 18:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:People choose to live in systems with effects often specifically for that effect. Introducing something that nullifies their reason for living in that system means that some will simply choose to live in a no effect system instead. I believe Bane said it best, if you are fighting in a system with a different effect than your doctrine, then bring a different doctrine (ie armor for wolfs and shield for pulsars).
So what if people choose to live in a system with no effect?
TBH i think your assessment is wrong. People will still pick a system with an effect because of the benefits it offers but the introduction of a module like this means that invaders would be able the temporarily take away the home advantage.
Yeah people could reship to suit the effect but few corps will have the right ship doctrine ready.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1414
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 19:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:Rek Seven wrote: few corps will have the right ship doctrine ready. This is the point I and others are trying to make. Stop just flying armor, get a shield doctrine set up if you plan on sieging a pulsar. Look at it another way, what makes wormholes unique? System effects!! You don't find them anywhere else in EVE, why take what makes wormholes unique out of the equation?
If we are talking about siegeing then yeah, you are obviously going to bring the right tool for the job but we are talking about day to day activities. It's a fact that some people will choose to roll a hole instead of fighting under an effect that they are not set up for,(or have the people for) and you asking nicely wont change that.
If you want the effect to remain unchanged, then you would have to ensure that the new structure was not anchored in your system.
Look at it from another perspective. The structure could allow smaller groups to combat unbreakable RR setups in cataclysmic wormmholes, which may help stop the need for corps to grow bigger...
Anyway, we appear to have gone off topic. o/
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1415
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 20:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nightingale Actault wrote:
I just don't see it playing out like that. In that situation your force would likely be wiped out before the device could ever activate, and knowing this your smaller group would never choose to go into that engagement.
You just reaffirmed my point... right? 
In a stalemate, this device could tip the scale. The alternative being, you go home and plan your upcoming recruitment drive for bhaalgorn pilots.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Awakened.
1415
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 20:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cool, so we are agreed. The ability to disrupt the effect of a system would encourage you to fight in this hypothetical situation.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|