I say make the wormhole description say, "this is a wormhole. It goes somewhere and there's no return. Deal with it."

Then make all wormholes one way and auto-collapse after 30 minutes.

This would make wormhole activities epic because you'd have to go prepared and take everything you need with your fleet.

Proper adventures for the properly brave.

Any chance of these wormholes having a means of identifying just how far away they go? E.g. a dark red wormhole's exit would be within ~X lightyear radius, whereas a bright blue/white wormhole would exit, far, far, far away.

I ask because jumping into random wormholes gets a bit tedious.

Or maybe a skill/module that provides some analysis of the wormhole's exit, on the grounds we've had enough experience with wormholes to tease out some of the science behind them?

I haven't bothered putting up a k-space colour guide, like I really ought to have done already, but suffice to say you can tell if the wormhole goes to Khanid, or The Force or The Citadel, etc. Minmatar regions are all more or less the same, so good luck with that. You can even tell where in nullsec your wormhole exits, if you are cluey enough.

Astrometrics should have the potential to be its own profession rather than a means to other ends such as mining (in all its forms), hacking & salvaging.

http://i.imgur.com/NdLDTVL.jpg
You can easily make a positive identification of the destination region just be using the "look at" function and zooming all the way in. I will admit that there are a few sets of regions that look very similar, though.

I think the only thing that's an issue here is that statement is only true with graphics turned up, as I believe that certain settings prevent seeing through the hole. You could range limit some sort of assistance for those people, but does forcing someone to come within 100km (the range required for this technique) really change anything? You warp into the sig within that range after you scan it down, anyway.

I double-checked before making the earlier post :) C5s, yes, C6s should only connect to w-space.

Sorry; I should have clarified. I'm talking "maximum size" restrictions, similar to how, e.g., C1s only allow small ships.

Yeah, we generally don't talk about numbers for this sort of thing, I'm already out on a limb with what I've posted :)


WRT people concerned about mass limits, these are just more of the holes that are already there, so they take the same limits as current lowsec holes, and as far as freighters go, we're generally of the opinion that people trying to use lowsec wormholes for freighter logistics is a good thing for lowsec PvP :)

Yup, we talked about this at at least one of the wormhole roundtables at Fanfest. Definitely on board with the idea, but our immediate plans are "finish industry" :)

Correct me if there is a way that I am unaware of to do this (I rarely scan for WH's due to the reason I am about to post)

Is it possible differentiate a WH sig from all other sigs? I hate spending 30 minutes scanning down every sig in 2 or 3 systems just to find out that NONE of them are wormholes. I feel like 8 probes launched at 64AU that pick up 20 sigs should be able to tell me which ones are wormholes without having to scan each and every single one down.

Regarding the "small fleet" angle of these holes, is it possible to mass-limit these types of holes so that they are primarily used for pvp, instead of as logistics shortcuts for freighters?

I am not sure how you have double-checked that, but I remember very clearly how I scanned down both C140s (to low) as well as Z142s (to null) in C6 wormhole space. Note that these are the same designations that the wandering C5->Kspace holes have, but I am very certain that they do exist in C6 space as well. I would imagine people living in a C6 could confirm this.

I will provide a screenshot the next time I encounter one of these.

...well bugger. That is a bug that has existed since 2009, apparently. The C6 region is (unintentionally) included in the C5-K distribution.


Whoops.


I will fix this. Sorry for the screwup, and double-sorry for teasing people suggesting to add more. Entirely my bad.

...well bugger. That is a bug that has existed since 2009, apparently. The C6 region is (unintentionally) included in the C5-K distribution.


Whoops.


I will fix this. Sorry for the screwup, and double-sorry for teasing people suggesting to add more. Entirely my bad.

http://i.imgur.com/NdLDTVL.jpg
You can easily make a positive identification of the destination region just be using the "look at" function and zooming all the way in. I will admit that there are a few sets of regions that look very similar, though.

I think the only thing that's an issue here is that statement is only true with graphics turned up, as I believe that certain settings prevent seeing through the hole. You could range limit some sort of assistance for those people, but does forcing someone to come within 100km (the range required for this technique) really change anything? You warp into the sig within that range after you scan it down, anyway.

But what I wasn't intending to do, was what you linked, because the appearance of the nebula change significantly with the distortion as seen through the wormhole colour itself. Which clearly I am not pointing out since this is International Sarcasm Day and I am an absolute dolt.

...well bugger. That is a bug that has existed since 2009, apparently. The C6 region is (unintentionally) included in the C5-K distribution.


Whoops.


I will fix this. Sorry for the screwup, and double-sorry for teasing people suggesting to add more. Entirely my bad.

Wait a second just to clarify. You're saying there should be no ls or ns wh connections direct to c6 space, that it was a bug and that it will be fixed so there will be no ls or ns connections to c6 space in the future?

Yup. 100% bug. We originally had connections from all Cs to K in Apocrypha development, and then cut the links between C6/C4 and K a month or so (I guess?) before release. I actually cut the C2 link as well initially, but then put it back in.

The rare C6-K wormholes only exist because somebody (ie, me) added the C6 systems to the C5-K wormhole set by accident. I have now fixed this and it'll be shipping in Crius.

A reasonable question and one I'm willing to have a proper dialogue on. From my point of view 1) UGH, 2) it's a weird inconsistency with the rest of the layout of w-space, and 3) C6 is intended to be isolated. On the flipside, I appreciate the fact that this has existed for a very long time and if anyone can make a really compelling argument why this is a harmful fix I will consider rolling it back

Aright, after talking to the design team, we're going to roll back the bug fix on the basis that it's not really necessary and probably too disruptive.

In order to square out the circle properly, how do people here feel about adding some actual k-C6 routes on top of the C6-k routes we'll be keeping? That would give us a properly consistent design rather than a "whoops".

That sounds good; encouraging more day trips is a good route to go with lowsec cap fleets. That being said, will we possibly be seeing any increase in the industry sector for w-space as previously stated, or perhaps more systems?