They're already mass limited as with all holes. Any specific limits to prevent specific activities?

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?

Would it be possible to move wormholes out of the signatures categories and put them into one of their own so we can filter between wormholes, anomalies and signatures? Wormholes already clutter up exploration and with more wormholes, this cluttering will only become worse.

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

Would it be possible to move wormholes out of the signatures categories and put them into one of their own so we can filter between wormholes, anomalies and signatures? Wormholes already clutter up exploration and with more wormholes, this cluttering will only become worse.

Interesting. What is low --> null and low --> low % now?

Hi everyone,

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

Which we thought was interesting, and we thought about some more, and we said "hey, more wormholes, right?".

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

FOOLS! Are ye that blind?!?

CCP: We need to nerf force projection.
CSM (aka Goonsquad): Eeeeeeeeeeek! I mean, okay...
Goonsquad + Goonleaderwaffles: *whisper*whisper*
CSM (aka Goonsquad): We need more wormholes in low-sec.


tl;dr- More wormholes == an end run around the Force Projection Nerf!


/taking away the tinfoil doesn't make it any less true

EDIT: For someone who has lived in lowsec for ~2 years, I think that would be an awesome improvement.



How do you pretend to shortcut freighters within low > low connections? Or are you talking about null > low?

That was stated in the post.

9% and 20% chance per lowsec system (approximately) respectively from what I interpreted.

WTS Tinfoil caps, 50 mill.

Small roaming fleets of super-cap ships? Were there also any talks about fiddling with wormhole mass limits? Or maybe new wormhole types (i.e. ones that accept "infinite" mass, but launch your ship/fleet to a random exit point in K space? (Where random isn't the random you're thinking of.)

Small roaming fleets of super-cap ships? Were there also any talks about fiddling with wormhole mass limits? Or maybe new wormhole types (i.e. ones that accept "infinite" mass, but launch your ship/fleet to a random exit point in K space? (Where random isn't the random you're thinking of.)

Selling Tinfoil Hats 49,999,999.99 Mill.

Also, I for one love the idea.

What are the current numbers (i.e., how much of an increase is this)? And can you give the numbers for hisec and nullsec, for comparison? I don't think I've ever seen these published before.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)

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?

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 :)

Does this come at the expense of Lowsec --> w-space WH spawn rate?

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?

well I guess this means we can get our sleeper loot to a trade hub more easily.

yay!

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?

Think we could see a small bump in High - Null WH spawn rate?

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?

You must learn to live in a wormhole. Freighters can only enter C5/C6 Holes. Let me break it down for you

Class 6 to High Sec = Freighters
Class 6 to Low Sec = Freighters, Carriers, etc..

Class 6 to Class 2 = NO Bueno

So essentially, anything coming out of a C4 to C1 can't have a capital brought through it, besides an orca.


I'm not sure HOW I like this. I live in a c2c3hs wormhole, and within the last 2 weeks, I've had 3 - 5 sigs in my home system, 2 - 3 being kspace holes. Frankly, I don't like it.

Seems as if CCP is determined to kill wormholes.



I don't think so. You just want a quick exit to bring more crap down. Nope. You live in null, stop trying to find easier ways to move crap out. Unlike you, we can't pop a cyno, and jump a JF. We actually have to WORK to get assets out.

Though, this would increase ganking too. I still believe null should have a 30 - 60s local delay.

Hi everyone,

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

Which we thought was interesting, and we thought about some more, and we said "hey, more wormholes, right?".

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)

Hi everyone,

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

Which we thought was interesting, and we thought about some more, and we said "hey, more wormholes, right?".

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)

Jump probe. Volume 8m-¦. Launched at targeted Jump Gate or Wormhole from a Expanded Probe Launcher.

Approaches Gate/Hole and activates it. Once on the other side it does a 250km directional scan and registers the system identity. Then it putters back towards the Gate/Hole and jumps back. There it uncloacks and waits for retrieval or until the flight time expires. Once retrieved the scan data can be read out.

If it doesn't come out again, something must have shot it down. Or something else may come through in its stead.

Advantage: You know where you're going.

Disadvantage: Someone knows you're looking and it slows down travelling time.

FOOLS! Are ye that blind?!?

CCP: We need to nerf force projection.
CSM (aka Goonsquad): Eeeeeeeeeeek! I mean, okay...
Goonsquad + Goonleaderwaffles: *whisper*whisper*
CSM (aka Goonsquad): We need more wormholes in low-sec.


tl;dr- More wormholes == an end run around the Force Projection Nerf!


/taking away the tinfoil doesn't make it any less true

Nope, these changes don't affect the spawn chance of any other wormholes.

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?

Anyone see any problems with this? :)

FOOLS! Are ye that blind?!?

CCP: We need to nerf force projection.
CSM (aka Goonsquad): Eeeeeeeeeeek! I mean, okay...
Goonsquad + Goonleaderwaffles: *whisper*whisper*
CSM (aka Goonsquad): We need more wormholes in low-sec.


tl;dr- More wormholes == an end run around the Force Projection Nerf!


/taking away the tinfoil doesn't make it any less true

I didn't think a lot of small gangs used k-k wormholes to roam, though. Is that common?

However, I question whether it is true that low sec is well-connected. That just seems false--e.g., half of Aridia is divided by some random high sec systems you have to pass through to get to one part of Aridia LS to another. Those sorts of HS divides are pretty common.

You must learn to live in a wormhole. Freighters can only enter C5/C6 Holes. Let me break it down for you

Class 6 to High Sec = Freighters
Class 6 to Low Sec = Freighters, Carriers, etc..

Class 6 to Class 2 = NO Bueno

So essentially, anything coming out of a C4 to C1 can't have a capital brought through it, besides an orca.


I'm not sure HOW I like this. I live in a c2c3hs wormhole, and within the last 2 weeks, I've had 3 - 5 sigs in my home system, 2 - 3 being kspace holes. Frankly, I don't like it.

Seems as if CCP is determined to kill wormholes.



I don't think so. You just want a quick exit to bring more crap down. Nope. You live in null, stop trying to find easier ways to move crap out. Unlike you, we can't pop a cyno, and jump a JF. We actually have to WORK to get assets out.

Though, this would increase ganking too. I still believe null should have a 30 - 60s local delay.

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 :)

I can understand not releasing some numbers that might give enterprising players the ability to front run a change. But saying what the random chance is of a WH appearing in lowsec doesn't seem like one of those things.

@CCP: Wormholers have been begging for more holes / better connectivity in wh-space for a long time now. Do you have any stance on that? we needs love as well ...

It's more just that some areas of the game we like to maintain some veneer of mystery so it's not all just "solved math". If you really want to know the current numbers, go do a survey of lowsec and graph your results ;)

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 :)

Sounds good, but as the guy said earlier, make it easy to tell WHs apart from useful signatures right away for ratters so we dont spend time scanning down unwanted WHs

Sounds good, but as the guy said earlier, make it easy to tell WHs apart from useful signatures right away for ratters so we dont spend time scanning down unwanted WHs

Sounds good, but as the guy said earlier, make it easy to tell WHs apart from useful signatures right away for ratters so we dont spend time scanning down unwanted WHs

Jump probe. Volume 8m-¦. Launched at targeted Jump Gate or Wormhole from a Expanded Probe Launcher.

Approaches Gate/Hole and activates it. Once on the other side it does a 250km directional scan and registers the system identity. Then it putters back towards the Gate/Hole and jumps back. There it uncloacks and waits for retrieval or until the flight time expires. Once retrieved the scan data can be read out.

If it doesn't come out again, something must have shot it down. Or something else may come through in its stead.

Advantage: You know where you're going.

Disadvantage: Someone knows you're looking and it slows down travelling time.

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 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 idea to improve the wormhole description/information panel to clearly describe what the different states mean... It will save immersion breaking google searches.

Well, at the moment there are not that many k-k WHs that you could call it common.
What e.g. we do is: we want to go on a roam, so we scan for wormholes. Inside the WH-Systems there maybe is another WH and so on.
Within 2 or 3 Hops from your starting system you may end up somewhere in deep 0.0 where you start your roaming.

-you don't have to pass the standard entry systems
-Locals will more easily be surprised since they will not immediately track you in their intel channels
-you get to see different regions each time without having to travel far

...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 :)

low sec is so ****** were giving you more ways to get out of it

Get your scanning skills up. Scanning is fast once you get used to it.

I'd really like to see them add exploration probes to the game that you can fire through the hole to get data on what's the other side before jumping through. The caveat would be that they're as large and difficult to fit as combat probes, and you lose one every time you fire it off into a hole.

Sounds good, but as the guy said earlier, make it easy to tell WHs apart from useful signatures right away for ratters so we dont spend time scanning down unwanted WHs

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.

CCp starting to do good things for low sec !!! i approve these "feature"

Who are you ? what have you done to the former CCP staff?

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"

I'm not a wormhole player, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do distinctly remember the excitement for our small null-sec alliance (~300 people) whenever a large wormhole opened up between somewhere near our systems, and highsec, or somewhere a couple of jumps away in low.

It gave us the opportunity to freighter in things like IHUB upgrades which we would otherwise not be able to manage without the benefit of bridging titans and the likes, which as a small alliance we didn't have.

Anyway, the alliance rallied around to protect both endpoints and we got those freighters through.

Won't this make Deep Sov Null even safer by reducing the chance of WH barbarians ?

Check the amount of space held by renting empires.

Interesting.

Isn't that called a cyno?

You should learn about sig sizes that would help you ignore a fair bit.

Isn't that called a cyno?

I thought they removed the ability to determine signatures based upon their signature strength?

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 what a cyno does...

Would the one time use mean that a frigate can come jump through and close it? This would mean that you wouldn't be able to see where the wormhole leads without it closing behind you... So please tell me how you envision such and "interesting" concept working.

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.

I didn't think a lot of small gangs used k-k wormholes to roam, though. Is that common?
.

I'd like to see more c5/c6 -> null wormholes appear, and not for the reason you might think. Please give me a moment.

0.0 guys are often belittled as nullbears but my experience is that often, when we have a wormhole open up into a sov system, the residents behave rationally, and are quite often willing to bring an expeditionary force to the entrance and give us a fight. Certainly if we jump a force in they will respond fairly quickly and we all get the fights that we enjoy - it's after all why we play the game.

These fights are rare because the circumstances for them are rare, but when they occur they are great fun.

In my experience, the 0.0 guys fight in a variety of fleet types. The fights are taxing, enjoyable and in a way, honourable.

When fighting other w-space corps it's just a T3 blob or nothing - usually nothing because both sides pretty much knows who's going to win before anything kicks off. The only way a fight starts is if one side is surprised - and in that case the outcome is not even in question. It's a hollow victory for the winners and a bitter waste of ships in return for zero fun for the losers.

So more c5/c6 -> null wormholes would mean:

1. some more management on the part of sov holders (sorry about that).
2. bringing together willing participants in combat more often
3. more chances for 0.0 folk to reap the riches of w-space without leaving home.
4. easier movement of capitals in and out of c6 space.

I think on the whole, everyone would win.

The only guys who wouldn't are miners. However, these guys are already well versed at protecting themselves by bubbling wormholes and gates. I don't think there's a big downside for them.

Thanks for reading.

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.

I like to think that CCP Greyscale is a decent, rational human being. I strongly believe that he wants the very best for eve and will realise that my suggestion is in everyone's interest.

I am sure he'll increase the number of 0.0->c6 wormholes and enjoy the adulation of players and co-workers alike.

CCP will see his brillance and award him a pay rise and a promotion.

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

They were at 0 weren't they...

hah greyscale. maybe you deserve that named Dust vehicle.

I thought trolling on the forums was prohibited.

( 0 x 100 = 0 for all those not getting it )

I'm terrible with the LAV, I always end up upside down :/

(If you will ask for silly things, I reserve the right to give a silly response. Sorry if I got anyone excited!)

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

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.

[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.

I thought trolling on the forums was prohibited.

( 0 x 100 = 0 for all those not getting it )

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

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?

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!

I just multiplied all the null->c6 wormhole counts by 100, I hope this meets your expectations!

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

1. Use the "look at" function on the hole
2. Compare to http://i.imgur.com/NdLDTVL.jpg
3. Profit

1. Use the "look at" function on the hole
2. Compare to http://i.imgur.com/NdLDTVL.jpg
3. Profit

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?

who the hell flies freighters in low sec, get a jump freighter, Also I think we see enough frig and destroyer fleets in low, these new WHs could be used for battleship and battle-cruiser fleets to move around and attack others without being swarmed by frigates. Not to mention money making opportunities day tripping to null without hitting gate-camps that are at the choke points of almost every null entrance minus the ones 15-30 jumps in low sec.

Quoting this so he is held accountable!

Does this take into account wandering wh's? As currently in my C6 is a z142 to nullsec

Give them a single transit limit low enough to prevent capital ships and a high enough total limit to allow a reasonably sized fleet once through or several small fleets through and this should be fine.

More k-k wormholes would be nice. They are rare enough as it is.

You should learn about sig sizes that would help you ignore a fair bit.

I like that image. Know of wnything else around with a similar theme?

One thing to consider - if one of the end results is that more people will be interacting with wormholes, it may be good idea to improve the wormhole description/information panel to clearly describe what the different states mean... It will save immersion breaking google searches.

Wormhole Class is a numeric rating contained within CCP supplied data dumps. In short, Wormholes leading to "unknown space" could lead to a class 1, 2 or 3 Wormhole Space system. A wormhole that leads to "dangerous unknown space" leads to a class 4 or 5 system, while a "deadly unknown space" wormhole always leads to a class 6 wormhole system.

Not everything is supposed to be spoon-fed. Sometimes having to dig abit deeper for the information just might make you more interested about it.

There's a thriving part of eve living in wormholes who have accepted the challenge of the unkown. Not having every piece of info there for you to see when you want is a part of it. You do the work and you will reap the rewards.

that opinion doesn't justify the discrepancy between named show info holes (high, low, null, c6) and the ambiguous ones (c1 - c5). it sounds an awful lot like a popular opinion, though.

currently what does finding out a wormhole's class involve? one of two things

recognizing a graphic through a visual distortion effect

looking up the locus ID on an external website

neither is conducive to gameplay (think of the noobs)

---

sorta repeating myself, but lemme expand on my previous post: high sec, low sec, null sec, and c6 wormholes are already readily identifiable via show info, so why not c1-5 (doesn't it strike you as incomplete, or an oversight that could use some consistency)

peeking works when the system is k-space, but how do you determine whether the k162 dangerous you've recently entered was to a c4 or c5? (without opening external websites)?

Hi everyone,

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

Which we thought was interesting, and we thought about some more, and we said "hey, more wormholes, right?".

After some further discussion, internally and with the CSM, we decided it seemed like a good idea to increase the number of k-k (ie within known space - to high, low and null) wormholes in lowsec, aimed primarily at adding opportunities for small roaming fleets.

What we're proposing is to leave the number of low->high as is at a ~1% chance per system, kicking low->null up to ~9% per system, and low->low up to ~20% per system.

Anyone see any problems with this? :)

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.