WH stabiliser and destabiliser

Sup o7.
Why dont CCP make 2 modules:
One which keeps the current WH stable, where it wont get penalised from ships passing through it as long as the module is at work with it. It should consume fuel to keep the work.

And the other one to close the WH by consuming a certain fuel. So players wony have to sacrifice ships to close it.

What you think?

I think this is suggestion is very poorly thought out and very lazy.

Its just an idea. Didnt go to deep in it.

I think it would defeat the purpose of the uniqueness of wormholes. Don’t like it at all.


I think it’s been discussed like 100 times already. No

1 Like

K den :frowning:

I’d only be remotely on board with a fueled stabilizer module if it turned the wormhole into frig class hole. Fueled modules would also need to be anchored on both sides.

As for a destabilizing module I’d opt for something that turns off mass regeneration…nothing else. Modules would need to be placed on both sides of the hole for operation to work.

Are you talking modules for ships or things you anchor? You weren’t very clear.

Also…no. Wormholes are meant to be unstable. It’s part of the whole balance of J-Space. What you’re proposing (assuming it’s anchorable structures) would turn J-Space into something like nullsec lite with semi-permanent entry-points and/or allow capital ships to flow much more rapidly into J-Space.

1 Like

Yeah, I could only stomach a fueled wormhole stabilizer if it turned those capital size holes into frig holes.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.