| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1495
   |
Posted - 2014.05.13 19:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Anyone see any problems with this? :)
I can't think of any and it's pretty awesome that your going to implement an ideas so soon after it inception.
One thing to consider - if one of the end results is that more people will be interacting with wormholes, it may be good to improve the wormhole description/information panel to clearly describe what the different time states mean... Maybe one day you could add a ship module that gives us more accurate information than we can get now 
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1498
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 08:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nimrod vanHall wrote:More K-K space wormholes and especially lowsec to nulsec holes might have a negative effect on (ice) mining, in nulsec and thus driving (ice) miners back to the safety of highsec. It might also lead to more expensive ships all around. If this is a good or a bad side effect depends on your own point of view ofcource.
They are increasing the number of connections, not removing local. 
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1499
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 11:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we have more Null <-> Null wormholes in NPC null space that is not affected by a sov upgrades.
Can those wormholes have small one time maximum mass but high total mass and /or regeneration capabilities?
This will also increase the "content" Interesting.
Isn't that called a cyno?
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1501
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:Rek Seven wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:Can we have more Null <-> Null wormholes in NPC null space that is not affected by a sov upgrades.
Can those wormholes have small one time maximum mass but high total mass and /or regeneration capabilities?
This will also increase the "content" Interesting. Isn't that called a cyno? If "yes" means "no" then yes, definitely.
Well the guy said a "one time use with high mass" so please explain to me how this is drastically different from a cyno...
Would the one time use mean that a frigate can come jusp through an close it? This would mean that it would you wouldn't be able to see where this were the wormhole leads without it closing behind you... So please tell me how you envision such and "interesting" concept working. 
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1501
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Last Wolf wrote:
I'm assuming he means that 1000 frigs or so could go through it because it has a high total mass. But a single battleship would not be able to because the maximum allowed mass would be too small.
Edit: numbers are arbitrary. Just giving an example.
Ah okay, that is how wormhole already work. So yeah, i'm all for increasing null to null wormholes that have a low "jumpable mass"
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1502
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 16:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I'd like to see more c5/c6 -> null wormholes appear, and not for the reason you might think. Please give me a moment.
Don't be silly, wormhole space never gets improvements like this. All updates are for k-space and we're lucky if ccp don't mess stuff up in w-space when expansion time comes around.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1502
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 19:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
(If you will ask for silly things, I reserve the right to give a silly response. Sorry if I got anyone excited!)
I wasn't having a serious dig at you i just found it funny that people on the wormhole sub-form have been asking for something like this for a while now but you guys come along and add it for k-space only, like it's nothing. 
If it's silly to want wormhole content to be improved and expanded on for the first time since apocrypha, i apologize.
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1502
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 22:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Yes thank you, than is very reasonable. It's nice to know that you guys want/plan to add things in the future, because i'm sure you can understand how it's easy for wormholers to think that CCP has forgot about us.
Hopefully this new 10 release thing will get us to your plans for wormholes faster 
+1 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Ixtab.
1502
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 22:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:[Edit] Also, to be clear, the thing that I was (very much tongue-in-cheek) suggesting was "silly" was *more* C6-Null wormholes, when there aren't any in the first place :) The request for more w-space connectivity in general is something we'd very much like to respond to with changes, as we think it's a good idea. Am I mistaken? I'm pretty sure we get direct-to-nullsec wormholes from the c6 now and again. Or was that when we were in a c5? I double-checked before making the earlier post :) C5s, yes, C6s should only connect to w-space. OK that would explain why the c5 was more fun. In that case, I'll revise my request. Could we have some 0-sec direct wormholes from c6 space please? It's lonely out here!
Hmmm idk... my dream is that they add c7 wormholes that only have static connection to c6 wormholes. This would make it so people would have to travel through several wormhole systems to reach the new space. Incoming k-space wormholes would mess that up if it happened.
I also surprised to learn that null sec (and presumably low?) doesn't get outgoing connections to c6 space. That might explain why we left out of boredom. 
+1 |
| |
|