Features & Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
16 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Kronos] More lowsec K-K wormholes

First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-05-13 17:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Greyscale
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? :)
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2014-05-13 17:51:15 UTC
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?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

#3 - 2014-05-13 17:51:22 UTC
Sounds like fun.
#4 - 2014-05-13 17:52:00 UTC
Sounds good to me...

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

#5 - 2014-05-13 17:52:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Klarion Sythis
Edit: Nevermind, I'm illiterate.
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-05-13 17:52:38 UTC
Interesting...
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2014-05-13 17:54:18 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Querns wrote:
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?

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

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

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Tactical Narcotics Team
#8 - 2014-05-13 17:55:22 UTC
Interesting. What is low --> null and low --> low % now?
#9 - 2014-05-13 17:55:32 UTC
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.
Nulli Secunda
#10 - 2014-05-13 17:56:10 UTC
yes

Build your empire !

Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist

Contact me for details :)

#11 - 2014-05-13 18:00:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Luis
EDIT: For someone who has lived in lowsec for ~2 years, I think that would be an awesome improvement.

Querns wrote:
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?


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

Gabriel Luis > shooting goonies is pleasure, not business

Tibalt Avalon > its tidi

#12 - 2014-05-13 18:00:51 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
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.


Wow, they buffed exploration by making the sigs so obvious and now you want it made even simpler?

I think as long as you're not increasing low to hs numbers it looks good. Do k-space systems have limits on holes appearing like w-space has 1 or 2 statics? If not, what are the chances a low sec system spawns multiple w-holes (not K162s from w-space)?

You're young, you'll adjust. I'm old, I'll get used to it.

#13 - 2014-05-13 18:01:52 UTC
Querns wrote:
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Querns wrote:
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?

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

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

Yeah, if I'd read it properly I would have understood.

The low to high rate stays the same and any low-low or low-null connection still represents a point in space that a freighter could be caught and killed, even with an adjacent HS. Max of 4 freighter passes anyway I assume. Seems like interesting gameplay with risks.
Black Legion.
#14 - 2014-05-13 18:03:26 UTC
+1 lets do it!
#15 - 2014-05-13 18:03:59 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
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.


No, its called exploration, not 'scan this for candy'

You should have to figure out if its a wormhole by scanning it to 25% and ignoring it, takes one scan anyway if you do it right.

-Blöd

http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/  -- My travels through space.

#16 - 2014-05-13 18:04:08 UTC
Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Interesting. What is low --> null and low --> low % now?

That was stated in the post.

9% and 20% chance per lowsec system (approximately) respectively from what I interpreted.
#17 - 2014-05-13 18:04:27 UTC
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

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Good Sax
#18 - 2014-05-13 18:05:05 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
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? :)


Someone likes this proposed change. :-D
#19 - 2014-05-13 18:05:25 UTC
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.
#20 - 2014-05-13 18:07:23 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:

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.

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.)

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

16 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump