Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Kronos] More lowsec K-K wormholes

First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#201 - 2014-05-20 08:50:16 UTC
Nox52 wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Niart Gunn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
[Edit] Also, to be clear, the thing that I was (very much tongue-in-cheek) suggesting was "silly" was *more* C6-Null wormholes, when there aren't any in the first place :) The request for more w-space connectivity in general is something we'd very much like to respond to with changes, as we think it's a good idea.


Am I mistaken? I'm pretty sure we get direct-to-nullsec wormholes from the c6 now and again. Or was that when we were in a c5?


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


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.



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.
Northern Coalition.
#202 - 2014-05-20 09:05:31 UTC
Even if it wasn't in the initial design and can be considered a bug. Is it bad enough so that it needs to be removed? I never heard anyone complain. Why do you feel the need to remove it?
#203 - 2014-05-20 09:24:42 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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.


Ok thanks for confirm.

Now we have an issue. I live in C6 space and this will affect the movement of caps in c6 dramatically. And for the worse. Was this wh change run past the CSM? Wh space has been this way for way too long to suddenly change the connection on short notice.
C C P Alliance
#204 - 2014-05-20 09:26:49 UTC
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 Smile
#205 - 2014-05-20 09:50:27 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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 Smile


Ok here are my points in rebuttal:

1) I manage some of the logistics for a medium sized C6 corporation. UGH doesn't even begin to encompass my response to your proposed poorly announced change when considering cap movements. And I have quite a lot of caps to move.

2) Until now virtually nobody knew it was an inconsistency. C6/C5 is characterised by the LS/NS connections for caps. Your "bug" has been a feature for so long it's a way of life. Extending this you could make the argument that since wh were never intended to be lived in you should remove everyone living in them. What you intended and what happened are two different things. Welcome to emergent gameplay

3) Decisions have been made months or years in advance on what kind of space you want to live in and what connectivity you have based on longstanding existing mechanics/features. This would significantly alter those decisions for the worse.

4) Given the case for a C6/C3 static it would significantly impair logistics. These wormholes are rare but significant events. Their loss would adversely impair power projection for small to medium sized corporations. I'd have to wait for other c5 connection and hope for the a or mine/move minerals in. I don't think you fully appreciate just how **** hauling minerals is and just how **** wh industry is.

5) If it goes ahead and it is changed, given a decision that current system is not suitable any more, I would petition a significant number of caps to be moved. If a bug got them in, a petition should fix them.
Catherine Laartii
#206 - 2014-05-20 10:27:19 UTC
Do you think at any point we will see a buff to w-space industry? Since we're apparently going the grass-roots route with putting more manufacturing power into starbases, would it be finally time to add moon goo and ice to w-space? I think balancing this by having a small fleet of sleepers attack the POS periodically would be a great way of keeping people on their toes about defending their pos, since assuming you don't add some sort of hacking reclamation system into the game, having a warfleet of sleepers show up and kick the crap out of an offlined pos or one without any guns would be a great way of opening up sorely needed real estate.

That and maybe some high-level Talocan NPCs for c4-c6 to spice things up a bit. Would love to see game lore cover the Talocans a little more...
C C P Alliance
#207 - 2014-05-20 10:40:02 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
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".

[edit] Props to Nox52 for a well-argued and reasonably level-headed response to a potentially major disruption. That post is a big part of why this is getting rolled back :)
Catherine Laartii
#208 - 2014-05-20 10:43:11 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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?
C C P Alliance
#209 - 2014-05-20 10:44:44 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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?


Not right now, no. We want to revisit w-space in a more comprehensive way in future, but we're focused on Kronos and Crius ATM and there won't be significant changes specifically for wormholes in either, beyond what's discussed in this thread :)
Shadow Cartel
#210 - 2014-05-20 10:46:51 UTC
eagerly awaiting whspace nerfs
Pandemic Legion
#211 - 2014-05-20 10:49:00 UTC
As a jumper of many caps in C6-space I would appreciate K-C6 connections, in line with what exists in C5 space today. More connections = more pvp opportunities, and visitors from K-space into Polaris would be greeted with a warm welcome.

It would also make it slightly more risky to farm in C6 space, which can't be a bad idea.

Medalyn Isis
#212 - 2014-05-20 10:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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".

Definitely. Seems illogical that people living in a C6 get extra protection by only having WH's spawn out of the system, but not into where they could be vulnerable to attackers like a C5 WH currently is. Perhaps just half the rarity of C6 > NS and then add NS > C6 at the same rate so it equals out.

I do think that C5 and C6 WHs from K space should be very rare though. Just my personal opinion. NS > C5s seem a little too common atm in my experience. Would add to the isolated nature of these more dangerous parts of WH space.
#213 - 2014-05-20 10:52:49 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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".


Very intrigued and would love more day tripping into null or low sec (kinda like reverse wormhole day tripping). So what are the details so they can be discussed.


Also yes wormhole industry is just **** atm so nreally does need a bit of a hand.
Catherine Laartii
#214 - 2014-05-20 10:54:52 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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?


Not right now, no. We want to revisit w-space in a more comprehensive way in future, but we're focused on Kronos and Crius ATM and there won't be significant changes specifically for wormholes in either, beyond what's discussed in this thread :)


I imagine this feature will come out in the distant future expansion along with wh gates, Rise and Fozzie get cut a break in rebalance features that don't turn into giant threadnaughts, and Entity finally decides to pay off the jove to fix the EVE gate and we all get to have our minds blown from the meta of seeing the terrans play eve 20000 years into the future.

Also,
We want to revisit w-space in a more comprehensive way in future,
Let the speculation run rampant, considering that with 10 expansions a year this will likely happen WAY sooner than we're used to seeing. You guys should put out your own tabloids to mix feature ideas for the future with conspiracies. It'd make these forums more interesting since people would be a little more reliant on you to actually confirm features, and by extension, nicer to you. :)
#215 - 2014-05-20 11:03:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Nox52
Edit double post: I do sometime fail at posting.
Northern Coalition.
#216 - 2014-05-20 11:06:51 UTC
If a K -> C6 connection helps you tackle your OCD, go ahead. It's not a significant change but it can have some interesting consequences. Your original plan was to remove something that sometimes caused interesting situations without disturbing anything meaningfull. This is much better :)
#217 - 2014-05-20 11:20:20 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

Good call. C6-K connections are not rare at all, in fact very common, and are extremely important for every c6 corp, especially c6/c6 corps. They enable these corps to move capitals into their homes or out of them. Also of course they provide valuable routes into Empire. Removing them would be extremely disruptive.

But funny that devs didn't know that when every experienced wh dweller has known for many years that the only class never directly connected to k-space is c4.

.

Goonswarm Federation
#218 - 2014-05-20 11:23:16 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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".



While I cant speak for everyone in C6 space I think most would be more than happy with K-C6 ( I know I would be)
C C P Alliance
#219 - 2014-05-20 11:40:18 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
Terrorfrodo wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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.

Good call. C6-K connections are not rare at all, in fact very common, and are extremely important for every c6 corp, especially c6/c6 corps. They enable these corps to move capitals into their homes or out of them. Also of course they provide valuable routes into Empire. Removing them would be extremely disruptive.

But funny that devs didn't know that when every experienced wh dweller has known for many years that the only class never directly connected to k-space is c4.


I know exactly how it's supposed to be set up :P

(Anyone have an opinion about linking C4 in both directions in the same way?)

[edit]

Gilbaron wrote:
If a K -> C6 connection helps you tackle your OCD, go ahead. It's not a significant change but it can have some interesting consequences. Your original plan was to remove something that sometimes caused interesting situations without disturbing anything meaningfull. This is much better :)


It's a little bit about the spreadsheet being nicer, but mostly about consistent rules that players can understand and, importantly, extrapolate into new situations. Weird exceptions are (marginally!) harder to explain and harder to internalize, and when they pile up they add to the barrier of understanding in the game. The reason I'm thinking now about linking C4s in the same way is that then there's a reasonably clear system "C1,2,3,5 have k-space statics and dynamics, C4,6 only have k-space dynamics" - and if you understand C4s, I can say "C6s have no k statics" and you can think "I bet they work just like C4s" and be correct without anyone needing to explain further.

Currently 1-3+5 have static/dynamic, C4 has neither, C6 has dynamics but only one way. Messy and a little bit harder to understand. If we can make many many changes to the game that make it slightly easier to understand and don't harm the gameplay, the game in aggregate gets much more accessible while still being just as good. Which is a good thing from our perspective :)
Hole Control
#220 - 2014-05-20 11:48:09 UTC
C6: Big thumbs up for both the decision to not remove and the idea of adding connections!

C4: adding k-space connections sounds like a good idea.

Wormholer for life.

Forum Jump