EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Sic Itur Ad Astra - Building a New Bridge to the Stars

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Sic Itur Ad Astra - Building a New Bridge to the Stars

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 47 post(s)
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 08:20:00 - [1] Originally by: Matting As a -5 player I really hope this helps low sec a little with more people looking around for these. My main worry is after jumping through wormholes I will find myself in high sec getting attacked by the faction police. This could fixed by w-k being the k-w security space or lower. This also would help those 0.0 mission runners who have neg standing to most of the factions and would prefer not to be dropped there. So finding a site in high sec puts an exit in low-sec or high sec, low sec sites go to low-sec or 0.0 and 0.0 sites only exit to other 0.0 space. I think putting high sec players in to 0.0 space would be bad as they won't like the idea of the wormhole being 0.0 let alone being dropped in some random 0.0 controlled space at the end. Not sure if this is suitable but there are already enough restrictions on being a "pirate" (-5). lol - a priate asking for zero risk
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 09:13:00 - [2] Edited by: Red 7 on 27/01/2009 09:25:28 Edited by: Red 7 on 27/01/2009 09:17:58 Edited by: Red 7 on 27/01/2009 09:16:48 Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 27/01/2009 08:45:44 About 2-way wormholes and 'gaming the system' At the moment it seems to be an easy way to 'fool' the wormhole mechanism so that it spawns wormholes to your favour. How so? Say that you are in W-space and have a wormhole leading to unfavourable space. Now, what to do to improve the sitation? Just jump through the wormhole often enough that the mass limit is reached and the wormhole will close. This should be very easy and very fast also. Then a new wormhole opens with the chance of a connection to a better K-place. With unfavourable meaning? If it's hostile space then you're going to have a problem with the locals in K-space. While you're jumping through a 100 times to close the wormhole - you're also a potential target. pictures local going up/down/up/down I think you're undersimplifying the complexity of what they have mentioned. There's many assumptions below but: In W-Space I would assume that wormholes that appear are more likely to connect to other W-Space systems rather than K-space. And as W-Space is a loosly connected system - the wormhole that opens may be in the same region, a neighbouring region or somewhere else entirely. So let's assume that short jump wormholes are more likely that long jump wormholes - a likely and plausable mechanic. Assuming that the new W-Space parrallel known Eve loosly with constallations & regions. This means that you're more likely to find a wormhole that links to a neighbouring W-space system/region and probably within the same constallation (ignoring egde effects). Local W-Space wormholes are going to be fluid and dynamic and without identifying information (ie chalk marks on walls or the modern GSC version) orientation is going to be an issue. Assuming that each constallation will have m-regions with entry points to K-Space and further than each region will have only 1 entry-point to K-space. If m is low (0.1 or there abouts) then you're looking at something like a 2% chance of finding a wormhole to get back to K-Space. Statistically you're better off taking your chances with what you find now - than for hoping for something better. Eve currently has around 5200 systems, 786 constellations and 67 regions. With 46% more systems being added - you're looking at 2400 new systems, 361 constallations and 30 regions.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 10:58:00 - [3] Edited by: Red 7 on 27/01/2009 11:00:15 Originally by: Kessiaan * Presence of a POS destablizes the system, making wormhole links much more likely to point into other wormhole systems. Most of the time there would be no wormhole back to k space in a w system with a POS in it. This would make logistics for a permanent POS much more difficult. This would be counter-productive - as it essentially makes the POS system a safe harbour and thereby safer. Additionally over time you would end up with a mechanism that allows players to create entry-point hubs to/from K-Space. Over an even longer period of time you would lock down W-Space.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 11:11:00 - [4] Edited by: Red 7 on 27/01/2009 11:13:11 I don't see a problem with POS's generally and I don't see why they should act any differently than now. You can't gain sov with them - and by the time you can the sov mechanics will have changed. A fortified POS puts a greater strain on your logistics - which means they're unlikely to appear in the short term until you've built up sufficient resources. In the same time period others will be building capital ships in W-Space. If you really wanted to make fortified POS's more painful - then just increase the fuel requirements of combat related POS modules on the tower to strain the logistics more. Not too disimilar to the current mechanic where sov reduces the fuel requirements. With delayed local and random exit points in system for WH's - nobody will be having an easy time tracking down incoming ships that can cloak. Depending of course on how the new combat probes operate.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 11:28:00 - [5] Edited by: Red 7 on 27/01/2009 11:28:52 Originally by: Ralitge boyter Wormholes have a certain mass they can handle before they collapse, so I find a wormhole and take 3 corp members trough for some nice ratting in a far away universe. Then an other corp finds the same hole, and shoves through 3 ships as well figuring they don't have to come back. Now there is 6 of us in the system and we get a long just fine. But we are all stuck there, even though 3 of us where planning on going back home after our cargo hold is full... that would sort of suck would it not? It's the old risk/reward. Hope for the best - plan for the worst. Originally by: Ralitge boyter Does this mean that we will have to defend a wormhole we found in Jita, to make usre our corp mates can come back trough? And if so does this mean that we can be assigned as hole guards making it possible to shoot and kill anyone tryng to move trough the hole? Will there be a anchorable device at the far end of the hole cloaking the hole at it's origin point? If you shoot people in empire - the system sec status will determine any concord response. Normal rules apply. They've not mentioned anything anchorable - but from what they have said - the wormhole itself won't move once it's up. The next one, if it's even in the same system, will probably be in a different location and will probably take you somewhere else in K-Space or W-Space. Originally by: Ralitge boyter Lets say I am stuck in wormspace for what ever reason I find a new hole... how do I know I am not going to end up in the middle of a 0.0 battle ground? Can I see where the wormhole leads? Can players assign names to the systems they find via the wormholes? What about the planets can we name thouse? Will there be planets? What about the new NPC's out there, will they all be hostile or will there be pigs in space as well? More belts that sounds like a wormhole that should be able to handle at least a few hulks and then a industrial several times before the hulks have to go back to prevent the hole from closing on them, but what is a band of pirates jumps trough... It cannot be that hard to figure out where a industrial is jumping to, which leads me to think that if I see one jump to and from several times I just scan the hole calculate the ammount of mass needed to colapse it and jump in and out a few times making it close as I jump to wormspace the last time, then I have a bunch of free hulks for the killing as they have no way out anymore. You can see where it goes by using it :) You can assign your own names to the bookmarks - I doubt you can perm name the system/planets. And 0.0 are killing fields if you're not prepared - risk/reward again.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 11:40:00 - [6] From what I've read so far - T3 ships are cruiser class only at the mo. There's not much info about the mechanics of how W-Space will contribute to T3 - but I would guess it would be BP based - so you'd need to reverse-engineer possible before you could build. The building requirements might also need T3 based components before you could build them - much as today with T2 construction.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 12:22:00 - [7] Originally by: Gypsio III So, what happens when an outlaw goes through a wormhole in wormspace and finds himself dumped in the middle of highsec knownspace? He gets a ticker tape parade by concord. The risk/reward goes both ways or do you only want the carebears to take the risk?
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 12:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: Red 7 Originally by: Gypsio III So, what happens when an outlaw goes through a wormhole in wormspace and finds himself dumped in the middle of highsec knownspace? He gets a ticker tape parade by concord. The risk/reward goes both ways or do you only want the carebears to take the risk? Ah, so where is the corresponding reward in an outlaw jumping into highsec knownspace? The busy day of harvesting those in 0.0 = reward. Using a WH to get back to Empire = risk.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.27 13:06:00 - [9] Originally by: Pattern Clarc From information provided to us from within this page, SHC have deduced that the upper limit for wormhole Mass-Stability would be roughly the mass of one Mothership. Mass-stability of wormholes of this magnitude would probably be extremely rare and more common from wormholes that lead out from 0.0. If the mass-stability of a wormhole equalled that of 1 Aeon, here are the numbers for the ships that can be transported before the wormhole collapses. Geddon = 11(.7) Harbinger = 91(.6) Sac = 100(.7) Crusader = 1178(.6) Remember, these numbers are pure speculation and have been deduced purely on comments made by the CCP since the recent blog For the rare (large) types of WH's. More common ones would be smaller - and therefore allow smaller ships.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.28 10:24:00 - [10] Edited by: Red 7 on 28/01/2009 10:31:49 Originally by: fuxinos Originally by: Shil'Deis Edited by: Shil''Deis on 28/01/2009 09:56:21 There is no way to prevent big alliances from holding some territory in W-space, and they will eventualy get some of the best... And this should not happen, if CCP makes the mechanic so easy, then this space should not be called unknown space. It kills the feeling of it, like factional warfare has no feeling as of a big war at all.... But I guess this is just Eve and CCP likes to make boring stuff... There's a simple way to deal with this. When a tower runs out of fuel - x days later it can be scooped by anybody else. If x is sufficiently short then it encourages better POS planning, logistics and helps turn-over of the moons. It's been discussed by CSM/CCP - so might be implemented in the not too distant future. Personally I'd like it to be around 7-10 days. This would also help the problem of Death Star POS's and allow more effective blockades of systems - you'd be able to starve people out. It's also way too early to propose nerfing POS's in W-Space. We don't know what the effect of having complex & random connections between systems will be. Let alone how having 0.0 NPC's will affect logistics. POS refueling won't just be about moving haulers through the space - you'll need scouts and probably combat ships. You're not going to get far if you're scrammed & webbed by the NPCs without support. We do know that it's not going to be easy to navigate the space and as such this will have an impact on the speed of any player infrastructure in the region. The avg WH size, duration & number of WH's in a system is a big unknown. The NPC's will be semi-intelligent and with a dmg output/tank somewhere around what currently exists in 0.0.

Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.28 10:51:00 - [11] What's the current thinking about the average number of wormholes that will be available at any point in time (found or yet to be discovered) from K-Space to W-Space?
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.28 11:27:00 - [12] Originally by: Clansworth Originally by: Red 7 What's the current thinking about the average number of wormholes that will be available at any point in time (found or yet to be discovered) from K-Space to W-Space? Somewhere a little less that 2500 probably? there are 2500 W-Space systems, most of which will have a K-Space link most of the time. Some will have none, but instead contain a W-W link, some will contain 2 k-space links, or a K and a W-W.. Still seems it will average out to around 2500... The more "lucrative" areas of W-Space will have rare links to K-Space. For the zone to be interesting I would imagine - what 10% would fit this bill? Which brings us down to 2250 systems. I can't imagine that all those W-Space systems will have W-K links. Otherwise it just ends up as a zone where pirates will hang out to gank anybody without needing to worry about tanking the guns. It would also mean that every other K-System would have a K-W WH.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.28 12:06:00 - [13] Edited by: Red 7 on 28/01/2009 12:09:36 Edited by: Red 7 on 28/01/2009 12:07:27 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Defenders in w-space will have a huge advantage. Pre-positioned ships and supplies will be a major benefit while attackers will have to slowly trickle resources and manpower into the systems. Attacking/defending systems that are even one level of depth greater than a k-w link (i.e. a system that is linked only by w-w links, with a k-w link to the next known space) will be an order of magnitude more difficult to attack/defend. With the links randomly generated, I'm really wondering how the systems will be layered with respect to how much 'true security' each system has, and how deep into w-space it is (number of consecutive w-w links you have to go through to find it). Will we end up with a list of tiered systems? Tier 1 meaning they're 'surface' w-space systems, with links commonly attached to known space, tier 2 w-space systems are commonly attached to tier 1 w-space systems and so on. Reaching a tier 5 system would mean having to penetrate randomly created links to five levels. I don't even want to think about the odds of being able to consistently navigate in/out of a system like that. You really could get infinitely lost for all intents and purposes. This is the real crux of the issue - hence my question earlier. The shallower that W-Space is - then the more of an issue POS's will be. The deeper it is then the more interesting things become but the more needed POS's are. They've hinted that this will be a place to get lost in - which suggests that it will be deep - and also that a larger proportion of the space will have infrequent connections to K-Space. Would be nice if proportions were something like: Tier 5 - 10% of systems Tier 4 - 20% of systems Tier 3 - 30% of systems Tier 2 - 20% of systems Tier 1 - 20% of systems For Tier 1 (high frequency of W-Space to K-Space WH's) - 250 W-Space systems which would mean approx 1/10 systems in K-Space are connected excl multiple K-Space connections to the same W-Space system. But haven't they also said that the lower the sec of the K-System - the more lucrative the end-point in W-Space will be? If so this essentially means that existing 0.0 space and the alliances have richer pickings from the offing.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.28 13:33:00 - [14] Except that the attackers have open supply lines - whereas the defenders don't. With cynos forbidden - defenders can't drop in supplys on a whim.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.28 14:25:00 - [15] Edited by: Red 7 on 28/01/2009 14:26:25 Originally by: Zackalwe We are probably talking about 80say battleships to take a fully armed POS. Assuming 5 BS per wormhole jump. Assuming it takes an hour of messing about to get a WH spawn anywhere near your space. Assuming half an hour travel time to get the next 5 BS to the new WH. Some assumptions obviously, but not too far out probably. So far thats 20 consecutive hours just to get the whole fleet into the system. Probably more like 2 days when you take into account a reasonable timezone operation. Reinforce the POS. Whole fleet needs to alarmclock to take down the POS when its out of reinforced. Which could take another 2 days where the fleet has to stay logged out in that system and not able to do anything else in the meantime. Put up your own POS. Now get the entire fleet out again, preferably in your own space so the snipe fit BS dont get ganked flying back in small groups. Probably another 2 days. A 6 day OP to take down a single POS tying up 80 battleships for the entire duration? Chances are that aint gonna happen often. Especially as losses will be high, considering it will probably be manned at some point. And the fact that the vast majority of the time will be highly tedious waiting / travelling. Your assumptions are a little off. If K-W space is as flat as some people suggest - then every other system (in K-Space) will be have a WH capable of reaching W-Space. 80 people in a 5 man team (5 BS per WH you mentioned) would be 16 teams. With around 1.5 hours needed based on your figures per team - then the rate of entry into the system would be defined by the number of systems you can cycle WH's in parrallel. If you can cover/control/work in 32 systems (assuming 2 systems per WH) then you can do it in 1.5 hours. Controlling safely 16 systems would take 3 hours, etc. Running sequentially wouldn't be optimal :) The harder part of course is the actual siege.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.29 12:37:00 - [16] Edited by: Red 7 on 29/01/2009 12:38:17 Originally by: Bellum Eternus .... You're missing an important consideration about W-Space and Tech 3. If the moons in W-Space provide materials required for Tech 3 production (a likely assumption based on existing Tech 2) then without POS's you're not going to have Tech 3. Until we have clarification on how Tech 3 will be achieved - you're jumping the gun a little.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.29 13:47:00 - [17] Edited by: Red 7 on 29/01/2009 13:48:41 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Further more, all existing abandoned POSes can't even be un-anchored and reclaimed as it is now. They simply have to be destroyed and then a new one put in it's place. Adding moons in w-space isn't the answer to moon mineral issues. The answer is to further perfect alchemy and dilute the lock on r64 mins. Otherwise you'll just see a lock on the r64 stuff in w-space systems. If you look at the 0.0 landscape it shows what happens with the current end game design regarding POSes. If POSes are allowed in w-space, the same thing will occur. It's just a matter of time and effort. The gaps WILL be filled by the sheer pressure of population increase and competition. Every scrap of worthwhile real estate in Eve is dominated by large power blocks, and w-space will be no exception if you allow permanent infrastructure to be erected in w-space. The issue with abandoned POS's has been raised by CSM and their thinking is that after a period of time offline they can be unachored by others. The main problem is how long it should be before somebody can steal them. Personally I prefer something short like 7 days but the last time I checked it was something like 30 days. If the components needed for Tech 3 manufacture come from NPC's then you can either bypass the reaction stage and drop items ready to be used in the manufacture process - or more "raw" components. The issue with the latter is the greater volume and hence cargo capacity needed. The problem with both is that it essentially raises the price of the constructed Tech 3 ship modules. Which means (using rigs as a baseline) that the ship modules would cost approx 30M isk each and a fully assembled Tech 3 ship 150M isk.
Red 7	Posted - 2009.01.29 17:26:00 - [18] You'd only need a thumper to attact the WH :)
Red 7	Posted - 2009.02.04 17:20:00 - [19] Bumped to remind Grayscale to dish the dirt on the new probing system.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.