Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 49 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 47 post(s) |
Granmethedon III
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:27:00 -
[1051]
Originally by: CCP Prism X Edited by: CCP Prism X on 28/01/2009 17:24:25
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab No, CCP PrismX is actually saying that there are two classes of wormspace systems. Those that _MUST_ have at least one wormhole, and those that might have zero or more.
Time flies like an arrow! (If you got that you're pretty spiffy!)
My bad, the quote strictly references wormhole space systems and I totally violated the contextual scope. I was referring to any given system, not strictly just wormhole space. However, I would argue that the definition does not change the possible meaning of my post, just removes the ambiguity. I never expressed any *need* for systems with no wormholes in them like I expressed the need for the other (Excuses, excuses, excuses! Thank god for that unless..).
At any rate: As it stands the in-out trick will do you a lot of good to dictate connections from W-K and I, for one, dislike that. I am however known to be difficult to the point of malice so you don't need to worry just yet. The team does recognize the issue at hand and is contemplating whether it should be addressed and if so, how. It should be expressed again, as Whisper commented on, that the nature of SCRUM is such that nothing here is set in stone. I know all developers say this during these kinds of discussions but SCRUM is made for that. So, things might change.. that's the point of getting the feedback from you guys (although I also like the "OOohh"s and "AAAaaah"s).
It's probably been said, but the in-out trick could easily be resolved by making ALL wormholes one way only. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:29:00 -
[1052]
Originally by: War Fairy Anything before the unless is meaningless as w-space systems meet the criteria after the unless.
It is the action of collapsing and hoping for a new wormhole to appear that is not applicable to w-space. It would be if you were looking for better w-space systems and hoping to keep your exploration to one system, but we haven't really even touched that possibility yet.
Anyway, the god himself answered above. |
Green Aen
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:31:00 -
[1053]
i'm in favour of giving wormholes a volume counter, not a mass counter. allows for a bit bigger battleship fleets and reduces the amount of battlecruisers and cruisers.
1 carrier = 10 battleships now 1 battleship = 10 cruisers now
on volume it would be like 1 carrier = 20 battleships 1 battleship = 5 cruisers
yes it also gives some problems but volume is easier to change then mass. and mass ratio's just **** carrier=mothership=dread=rorqual=freighter <= this ***** |
|
CCP Prism X
Gallente C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:32:00 -
[1054]
Originally by: Granmethedon III It's probably been said, but the in-out trick could easily be resolved by making ALL wormholes one way only.
Yes it has, but as I see it that would go against the core design. Although everything is mutable that would be a huge change that should *not* be made for that express purpose alone. It should be a reaction to a core mechanics change, it would require the answer to the question of "Why do we want wormhole space?" to change. Not a possibly exploitative mechanic surfacing.
That being said, the code architecture is not done in such a draconic manner that it's impossible to switch. We might even, possibly at some point, maybe, i wish i had more words to indicate utter uncertainty, have two kinds of worm holes. 1-Way and 2-Way. Hell, we could probably put a permanent wormhole somewhere that would simple throw you out the exit of a random, already existing wormhole.
What I'm trying to say is: Impossible is what we put on our cereal in the morning. |
|
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:33:00 -
[1055]
Edited by: War Fairy on 28/01/2009 17:34:52 EDIT: Too slow again. Redundant post deleted.
|
Granmethedon III
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:35:00 -
[1056]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
Originally by: Granmethedon III It's probably been said, but the in-out trick could easily be resolved by making ALL wormholes one way only.
Yes it has, but as I see it that would go against the core design. Although everything is mutable that would be a huge change that should *not* be made for that express purpose alone. It should be a reaction to a core mechanics change, it would require the answer to the question of "Why do we want wormhole space?" to change. Not a possibly exploitative mechanic surfacing.
That being said, the code architecture is not done in such a draconic manner that it's impossible to switch. We might even, possibly at some point, maybe, i wish i had more words to indicate utter uncertainty, have two kinds of worm holes. 1-Way and 2-Way. Hell, we could probably put a permanent wormhole somewhere that would simple throw you out the exit of a random, already existing wormhole.
What I'm trying to say is: Impossible is what we put on our cereal in the morning.
Me likes the sound of that! *wishes hard* |
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:46:00 -
[1057]
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: War Fairy Anything before the unless is meaningless as w-space systems meet the criteria after the unless.
It is the action of collapsing and hoping for a new wormhole to appear that is not applicable to w-space. It would be if you were looking for better w-space systems and hoping to keep your exploration to one system, but we haven't really even touched that possibility yet.
Anyway, the god himself answered above.
That's just wrong. Learn what unless means. The action of collapising and hoping for a new one applies to systems that don't have to have a worm hole. That's k-space. |
Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:50:00 -
[1058]
Edited by: Xailia on 28/01/2009 17:50:43
Originally by: CCP Prism X Time flies like an arrow! (If you got that you're pretty spiffy!)
My bad, the quote strictly references wormhole space systems and I totally violated the contextual scope. I was referring to any given system, not strictly just wormhole space. However, I would argue that the definition does not change the possible meaning of my post, just removes the ambiguity. I never expressed any *need* for systems with no wormholes in them like I expressed the need for the other (Excuses, excuses, excuses! Thank god for that unless..).
At any rate: As it stands the in-out trick will do you a lot of good to dictate connections from W-K and I, for one, dislike that. I am however known to be difficult to the point of malice so you don't need to worry just yet. The team does recognize the issue at hand and is contemplating whether it should be addressed and if so, how. It should be expressed again, as Whisper commented on, that the nature of SCRUM is such that nothing here is set in stone. I know all developers say this during these kinds of discussions but SCRUM is made for that. So, things might change.. that's the point of getting the feedback from you guys (although I also like the "OOohh"s and "AAAaaah"s).
So to clarify:
W-systems have 1-n wormholes active. K-systems have 0-n wormholes active. Certain K-systems have 1-n wormholes active.
Correct?
and "Some W-systems can have 0 wormholes active" is under consideration? |
Des Jardin
Ad Astra Vexillum Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:52:00 -
[1059]
Forced wormhole shifting:
I suggest two possible solutions to mitigate abusing a wormhole closure through the transiting mass trigger --
1. Prevent ships exiting a wormhole from retargeting the wormhole for 30 secs -- like how ships undocking from a station cannot be targeted for 30 seconds (unless then take an affirmative action); or
2. Eject ships exiting a wormhole, that is, give them some degree of forward momentum that they need to turn and reapproach the wormhole before they could reenter.
Both suggestions would slow down the ability of ships to close an undesirable wormhole. More time, means more time for pilots in the undesirable system to notice the recent visitors.
I see three basic reasons (I sure there are more) to accelerated wormhole closure --
1. Pilots in w-space want to keep others out; 2. Pilots in k-space want to keep others out; and 3. Pilots don't like where the wormhole leads.
By delaying the ability of either side to prematurely close the wormhole, the potential for something "bad" to happen increases. Maybe some undesirables slip through, maybe the locals come to investigate who keeps popping in and out of their system.
Further, the time delay does not negate the basic functioning of the wormhole but adds a nuance that complicates simply waiting for a quick succession of session changes.
Just a thought ...
Des Jardin |
Raymon James
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:52:00 -
[1060]
Originally by: CCP Prism X Edited by: CCP Prism X on 28/01/2009 17:24:25
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab .
At any rate: As it stands the in-out trick will do you a lot of good to dictate connections from W-K and I, for one, dislike that. I am however known to be difficult to the point of malice so you don't need to worry just yet. The team does recognize the issue at hand and is contemplating whether it should be addressed and if so, how. It should be expressed again, as Whisper commented on, that the nature of SCRUM is such that nothing here is set in stone. I know all developers say this during these kinds of discussions but SCRUM is made for that. So, things might change.. that's the point of getting the feedback from you guys (although I also like the "OOohh"s and "AAAaaah"s).
you Overcapitalised it again.
To me the solution is simple
take the list of regions
treat them like a deck of cards
each Wormhole has a deck of regions that it will link to
then shuffle the wormholes "deck of regions" then every time it needs to open a wormhole it picks the system from the region on the top of the deck.
once you get 75% (or 80 or 90 or 95%) of the regions drawn, shuffle the discard pile of regions and add it to the bottom of the pile. that will tend to force the wormhole to move around and force any wanabe Wormhole tunnel diggers to at least work for a liveing to get it back to "there" space
|
|
Shinma Apollo
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:53:00 -
[1061]
A few things:
Concord: This sounds like a surefire way to exploit concordorkenning by scanning down a W, ganking someone in a belt, warping to W, and jumping through.
Wormholes: Will they operate like stargates so they can be bubbled as such?
Cloaking: PLEASE remove cloaking as a viable strategy for wormholes, otherwise wormhole systems can be easily distinguished by, "Oh I'm in wmlmmkmk system, right next to asdfffass system"
Moons: will there be standard moons? It would pretty much obliterate the exploration idea within a few weeks if it was. |
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:53:00 -
[1062]
Originally by: Xailia Edited by: Xailia on 28/01/2009 17:50:43
Originally by: CCP Prism X Time flies like an arrow! (If you got that you're pretty spiffy!)
My bad, the quote strictly references wormhole space systems and I totally violated the contextual scope. I was referring to any given system, not strictly just wormhole space. However, I would argue that the definition does not change the possible meaning of my post, just removes the ambiguity. I never expressed any *need* for systems with no wormholes in them like I expressed the need for the other (Excuses, excuses, excuses! Thank god for that unless..).
At any rate: As it stands the in-out trick will do you a lot of good to dictate connections from W-K and I, for one, dislike that. I am however known to be difficult to the point of malice so you don't need to worry just yet. The team does recognize the issue at hand and is contemplating whether it should be addressed and if so, how. It should be expressed again, as Whisper commented on, that the nature of SCRUM is such that nothing here is set in stone. I know all developers say this during these kinds of discussions but SCRUM is made for that. So, things might change.. that's the point of getting the feedback from you guys (although I also like the "OOohh"s and "AAAaaah"s).
So to clarify:
W-systems have 1-n wormholes active. K-systems have 0-n wormholes active. Certain K-systems have 1-n wormholes active.
Correct?
and "Some W-systems can have 0 wormholes active" is under consideration?
It's exactly what I said earlier.
K-space systems may have a WH. K-space WHs only lead to W-space.
W-space systems must have a WH. W-space WHs can lead to either W-space or K-space. |
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 17:56:00 -
[1063]
PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Khanto Thor
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:01:00 -
[1064]
Edited by: Khanto Thor on 28/01/2009 18:01:02 I think there should be a max limit of 1024 wormholes active at any time.
That will make it far more interesting! |
Arimathea Anthalas
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:02:00 -
[1065]
CCP:
I have a few questions that have not yet been answered in the thread, and a few comments.
- POS Scanner Array: Perhaps you could consider modifying the purpose of this array, which I find is rarely used (sov requirements?), to have some wormhole finding features.
- Other POS structures: I would particularly like to see a new set of Astrometrics POS structures for people with higher skills (this isn't specifically related to wormholes, more related to K-space).
- Better astrometrics platforms: While we have a great amount of scanning ships and fits right now, I think more could be done with astrometrics in general other than just modifying the scanner systems as you've already stated - particularly to reward players that have invested a lot of energy into training up astrometrics stuff. I'd like to see things like a deployable astrometrics array (with a lot of caveats) that goes above & beyond probing but has somewhat asinine skill requirements in order to make the payoff worth it.
- Cloaking: I assume that when you arrive into a WH system and out of one, that the normal session change cloak will remain active. This is the case, yes?
I think in short, i'd just like to request for either Apocrypha or post-Apocrypha, you spend some time thinking about the future of astrometrics. I know that with an alt of mine I really enjoy the work of scanning down and exploration, and while WH are a logical, worthwhile, and enjoyable extension to that, i'd like to allow people to open new businesses "vending information" about wormholes. To me this means we need things like the "wormhole survey" probes and other items suggested earlier in the thread. Please give that some consideration.
Oh, also, last and not least, can someone PLEASE fix the Draftsman GI-2 implant bug at Apocrypha release? This bug is over a year old and there isn't much of an excuse for it to still be around.
I'd like to say thanks again for a great teaser & expansion plans - the WH stuff looks great and i'm very excited.
AA |
Zex Maxwell
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:02:00 -
[1066]
Originally by: Armoured C PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, can we see some concept art? So we can give you guys more
Originally by: CCP Prism X "OOohh"s and "AAAaaah"s.
|
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:03:00 -
[1067]
OOOOOOOOOOOh
Devs, Plese,
Can you put alien stations in WH space???
Like an awesome treat that you randomly find that has a POS in every moon, a stocked market full of T3 items, some random missions, etc???
Make it like two or three w-w links deep, something that you really have to look for. |
Zackalwe
Gallente Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:04:00 -
[1068]
Originally by: CCP Prism X
The team does recognize the issue at hand and is contemplating whether it should be addressed and if so, how. It should be expressed again, as Whisper commented on, that the nature of SCRUM is such that nothing here is set in stone. I know all developers say this during these kinds of discussions but SCRUM is made for that. So, things might change.. that's the point of getting the feedback from you guys (although I also like the "OOohh"s and "AAAaaah"s).
Its good to know our feedback is apreciated, and we give it (most of the time) so that our game can be improved.
If you guys decide to allow invincible deathstars on isk maker moons, and the ability to supply them, then fair enough. I will be one of the first to try to set one up for myself, and never have to worry about isk again :) It just seems a bit cheesy to me if it turns out this way. All we can do is give you feedback on how we would play the game for profit given the mechanics that you have talked about.
On a lighter note: Have you considered that wormholes can theoretically transport you in time as well as space? Could you code in the possibility of us going back to experience the first Great Northern War? I could bring a few capitals back and help out Razor against the MC |
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:05:00 -
[1069]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 28/01/2009 18:06:18 Looks really interesting so looking forward to this new depth in EVE :) (yes i actually forgot to say that i in general like this blog...sorry guys....:) )
I hope this system with a whole new way of utelising probes will actually benefit from Astrometrics LVL5 as currentrly that level only gives access to using special moon probes and nothing else. The skills description (enables 1 scanning group pr level) well there are only 5 scanning groups and no probe can be used to scan in all of the groups anyway.
I know there is a lot os skills that do absolutely nothing but seeing as this new expansion will be all about scanning maybe you should take a little look at Astrometrics (lvl5) |
Arito Ka
Gallente Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:05:00 -
[1070]
A lot of people have been commenting on the possibility of using scanning alts parked in W space systems and jumping in and out of wormholes in order to make getting back into a system much easier. While I agree that this would make it much easier to maintain a pos in that system, I think there are a couple points to consider:
It has been stated that not all W space will be created equally, both in terms of system resources and where WH's originating in that system will lead. It is possible that W space has something similar to sec status in K space, with high-sec W systems having WH's connected to K space or low-sec W space, low-sec W systems connected to high- or null-sec W space, and null-sec systems which only connect to low- or other null-sec. Assuming that resources are also distributed unevenly, the systems that would be most profitable to colonize would also be the ones A.) hardest to find, and B.) hardest to get back to. Even using alts to close unwanted wormholes, it would still take a considerable amount of time and/or luck to find a route to friendly space if you have to travel through at least 3-5 W systems. Also, you could no longer find ways out with one scanning alt parked in the colonized system, and it would be possible to have the people exploring for ways out to get stuck or unable to retrace their steps.
One way wormholes have been mentioned as an alternative mechanic. However, this would make long-term of any system, even the ones routinely connected to k space, practically impossible. If there are 2500 possible exits to any WH you scan down, and it takes 30 minutes to find each one (a very conservative guess from my experiences with conventional exploration) it would take on average 54 23 hour days of scanning before you found a WH that connected to the specific system you were looking for. This would mean that in effect, what you took in with you was all you got. Now this could lead to some interesting situations, such as deciding whether to bring 4 HAC's to kill rats, or swap out one or 2 of them for industrials for carrying ammo and hauling loot, or go with as many industrials as you can fit loaded with POS fuel in hopes that your stumble onto a dyspro moon and milk it for a month before your tower dies. However, I think it makes the options of explorers a bit more restrictive than it should be.
If people still think colonization would be to easy, then a timer could be put in so that you cant back-track through a WH you just jumped through for 30 minutes, or something. This would mean that people living in W space would either take what they were given in terms of WH's, or position a whole bunch of "WH closers" along with the manditory scanning alts. |
|
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:08:00 -
[1071]
Originally by: Raymon James force the wormhole to move around and force any wanabe Wormhole tunnel diggers to at least work for a liveing to get it back to "there" space
But you don't need to get to "their" space. Any Empire system will work. |
Daryldutch
Caldari Relentless Storm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:08:00 -
[1072]
Here is a picture: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/909207/page/71 |
Xailia
Unsteady Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:08:00 -
[1073]
Originally by: War Fairy K-space WHs only lead to W-space.
Prism X has left that as a possibility though:
Originally by: CCP Prism X I just said there would be a possibility K<->K connections. I emphasize possibility to ensure that people don't expect that to be the norm.
|
Rosur
Gallente Infestation.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:09:00 -
[1074]
This is only one of the features Wonder how big this download is going to be.
Also from what i can gather is that the probe launchers to find these systems (existing ones change to the new ones) inculding the faction ones into the new faction probes? W-space will allways have a connection to K-space though u might have to go through lots of W-W space connections? So if u run out of probes the only way back is by self destructing or is there other options? Also will ship scanner be able to find them but a lot lower chance than the probes? Will some W-space have no connections to it for some time if a wormhole runs out?
|
Khaelis
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:10:00 -
[1075]
I for one would love to see those Permanent wormholes that throw you out randomly in W-space! Also, a random distribution of 1-way and 2-way wormholes..
The idea of W-systems that do not always have to have an exit wormhole is kinda cool, although after I think about it... it does not sound like that good of an idea. You go out with a group of your mates looking for adventure and 3 wormhole hops in you close the wormhole behind you and find.. no wormholes. You are now stuck for a few hours until one decides to appear.
Although I guess you could just not take the risk and not close any wormholes behind you... hmmm.. |
Arthur Rage
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:13:00 -
[1076]
Edited by: Arthur Rage on 28/01/2009 18:15:21
Originally by: Shinma Apollo
Wormholes: Will they operate like stargates so they can be bubbled as such?
Cloaking: PLEASE remove cloaking as a viable strategy for wormholes, otherwise wormhole systems can be easily distinguished by, "Oh I'm in wmlmmkmk system, right next to asdfffass system"
Wormhole camping, oh noes, Stargate camping is lame enough.
Cloaks, any reason why they should not work ? The distinguishing part you mentioned somehow doesn't make sense.
Forced Closing :
30sec timer or 100km traval distance, not exactly alot. even if this makes closing 30 minutes longer that'll be still way too fast.
My idea - When going through a WH the Ship is affected in a way that it can't go back immiadetly, it is "energized" and gets pushed away like two magnets with the same load whey trying to approach. The bigger the ship the longer it takes for the effectt to dissappear - like 5mins for Shuttles, 15mins for Frigates ...
This effect also messes up Sensors and makes locking on the newly arrived ship extremely difficult (impossible for a short while ?).
Wormhole camping : nope. (except Smartbombs and so on) Forced closing within a very short time : nope. Reasonable explaination for mechanic : yes. |
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:21:00 -
[1077]
Originally by: Xailia
Originally by: War Fairy K-space WHs only lead to W-space.
Prism X has left that as a possibility though:
Originally by: CCP Prism X I just said there would be a possibility K<->K connections. I emphasize possibility to ensure that people don't expect that to be the norm.
He's difficult to the point of malice. He's qualifying it verbally and with emoticon.
The tech handles it. Nothing more. He's also said they could possibly be one way. He's also said they could possible have a fixed one that throws you anywhere.
My summary is based specifically mentioned items. If there's a concrete statement about K-K WHs please provide it. |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:22:00 -
[1078]
Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 28/01/2009 18:26:00 SOLUTION Simple fix for POS problem:
No Stronting POS's in WH space.
Refining/Moon Mining/hangar/large-gun requires tremendous PG requirements, soo much in fact that the only other thing you can fit is a small gun or two; enough for a small RR BS gang to kill)
What happens?
BoB holds a ton of WH space. A small, 30 man corp wants a dyspo moon. Corp goes in BoB's off time (does that even exist?) and amasses BS's through the scout trick (poking head out and yelling in corp) They amass a couple dozen BS's and assault, destroy, and set up their own POS in the matter of a couple of hours, under BoB's nose.
They then camp the system for a few hours, days whatever, hunting down any alts that log on, collapsing wormholes that pop open, etc.
All record of the Dyspo moon is lost for bob, save for BM's that will tell them when they arrive there that it was (even that can be changed ) and the corp now has a Dyspo moon that they can have.
How long will they have it? idk, if they keep a couple guys there mining, they can keep it by killing scouts, collapsing WH's, fending off assaults. The key is, no alliance, no matter the size, can ALWAYS have an alt, active and logged in every system they want to claim.
And even if they do, say a couple hacs/recons gets in, what's the chance that this scout is going to find the WH before they do, jump out and yell to his buds to run to xyz system to jump in and defend? Slim I say, irregardless of size.
Its inelegant, its clunky, but who cares. The only problem I can forsee is how long can an entity hold a moon in this environment? Enough to turn a profit? If you're using only a small POS that's able to fit a single hangar, moon array, refinery, then yea, I think a profit can be had pretty quickly from moon ****.
Thoughts? |
War Fairy
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:23:00 -
[1079]
Edited by: War Fairy on 28/01/2009 18:24:21
Originally by: Arthur Rage Edited by: Arthur Rage on 28/01/2009 18:15:21
Originally by: Shinma Apollo
Wormholes: Will they operate like stargates so they can be bubbled as such?
Cloaking: PLEASE remove cloaking as a viable strategy for wormholes, otherwise wormhole systems can be easily distinguished by, "Oh I'm in wmlmmkmk system, right next to asdfffass system"
Wormhole camping, oh noes, Stargate camping is lame enough.
Cloaks, any reason why they should not work ? The distinguishing part you mentioned somehow doesn't make sense.
Forced Closing :
30sec timer or 100km traval distance, not exactly alot. even if this makes closing 30 minutes longer that'll be still way too fast.
My idea - When going through a WH the Ship is affected in a way that it can't go back immiadetly, it is "energized" and gets pushed away like two magnets with the same load whey trying to approach. The bigger the ship the longer it takes for the effectt to dissappear - like 5mins for Shuttles, 15mins for Frigates ...
This effect also messes up Sensors and makes locking on the newly arrived ship extremely difficult (impossible for a short while ?).
Wormhole camping : nope. (except Smartbombs and so on) Forced closing within a very short time : nope. Reasonable explaination for mechanic : yes.
This only stops small groups. Large groups of players can throw people at the problem to negate the game mechanic.
Due to the random nature I think worm hole camping will be staring at empty space. You're better off roving. |
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 18:29:00 -
[1080]
Originally by: Des Jardin 1. Prevent ships exiting a wormhole from retargeting the wormhole for 30 secs -- like how ships undocking from a station cannot be targeted for 30 seconds (unless then take an affirmative action);
Currently there is no way that you can avoid the session change timer mechanics when moving from one system to another. There is no reason to beleive that those same mechanics would not apply equally to wormholes. Originally by: Shinma Apollo Concord: This sounds like a surefire way to exploit concordorkenning by scanning down a W, ganking someone in a belt, warping to W, and jumping through.
Obviously a required mechanic. If CCP forget to impliment this (like they did with the introduction of Black Ops ships) then expect it to be officially declared an exploit within a couple of day of the expansion's release. Originally by: Shinma Apollo Wormholes: Will they operate like stargates so they can be bubbled as such?
It has already be stated that you could do this. The question is why bother. If your going to look for wormholes in a busy system, then you deserve to be caught by the camp on the other side. If pirates want to camp a wormhole in a quite system, all the better than they aren't camping a wormhole that is going to net them any targets. Originally by: Shinma Apollo Cloaking: PLEASE remove cloaking as a viable strategy for wormholes, otherwise wormhole systems can be easily distinguished by, "Oh I'm in wmlmmkmk system, right next to asdfffass system"
What on earth you are talking about? Originally by: Shinma Apollo Moons: will there be standard moons? It would pretty much obliterate the exploration idea within a few weeks if it was.
Yes there will be moons. No it will not obliterate exploration idea within a few weeks. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 49 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |