In the past, a frequent suggestion has been shrinking the size of the WH warp in/out sphere so as to make it more of a chokepoint. The problem with this approach has been the fact that, while it does allow for an easier blockade of exiting ships, it makes entering ships too much of an easy target.

For certain Grey systems, let's increase the chokepoint-y nature without shrinking the WH sphere size by reducing the number of WH sectors. Thus, it's still not easy to sit right on top of a warp in, but the chance of seeing a player increases greatly. WHs and related objects like stations and turrets should be positioned away from eachother, but within sensor and chase range - around 2000-3000m. This will also increase the danger of Grey for nation hated pilots in most cases, since previously unmonitored WHs will now have nation defense turrets in the same sector and in the case of Ukari the sector will be UIT guarded for all three exiting WHs (alternatively, we could just dispense with the station like we did with the Itani one in Edras).

Ukari: WHs at L2, B5, and A10 all relocated to sector C3; C3 becomes a UIT station sector, and the WH to Initros remains guarded by Serco turrets.

Latos: WHs at H2 and B6 relocated to E3; WH into Azek remains guarded by UIT turrets.

Edras: WHs at I2 and B11 relocated to D6; WH into Jallik remains guarded by Itani turrets, WH into Verasi remains guarded by UIT turrets.

Definetely +1, but imho turrets should have less armor than it is.

So what you are proposing is having more than one wormhole in a given sector? Could be interesting. I'd be willing to give it a try in one sector at least...

More than one wormhole per sector could be cool. So would "shortcut" wormholes that jump across sectors in the same system.

But your Ukari example sucks ass, that would mean there's a route between UIT and Serco space that never touches an unmonitored sector -100 to that.

Valid point, ARF. Guess we need to Edrasize the Ukari thing: UIT station in L2 goes bye bye.

I think the turrets on the Grey side of WHs need to go, too, especially since it's the ones on the warp-in side that actually do the defending. And that would make this suggestion a heck of a lot simpler and more chokepoint friendly. But I know it would make the carebears cry.

+1 to wormhole clusters, especially to taking out grey turrets. +1 also to introducing this concept to all systems, not just grey borders.

For those out there that demand rhyme and reason, the wormholes' gravitational fields cause them to converge.

Piracy to difficult for ya.

- I greatly like the idea of more chokepoints and things in gray.

- However, I do not like consolidating more wormholes into single sectors.. for reasons that have nothing to do with gameplay. The wormholes were laid out in part for reasons of scalability. Having traffic condense into one sector is cool for gameplay, having too much could overwhelm the given core the SD is running on, and "traffic" can include all the bots, which are physically simulated server-side. We have various solutions to mitigate this, which I'll not go into (different "classes" of back-end servers that run high and low intensity sectors).. but it's something I'd rather avoid if we can arrive at a similar gameplay benefit by a different route.

- I would rather address the choke-point issue through the previously-discussed fogged reef type additions (see thread for reference, don't revive it).. altering the mechanics needed to get from A to B, introducing new limitations to jumping, and simply creating new and more varied (and interesting) choke regions as a result. I've been sort of hoping we might get to do that this holiday season, but, I was sort of hoping for a phone release in August too. The fogged "reef" areas would cross whole systems, and would be "thick" enough to require multiple jump-hops to traverse, except for certain areas that would be faster/more efficient to transit.. with the potential added risk of whomever might sit there.

Reefs could be used in systems with three wormholes to choke traffic to a couple of likely passage spots, but without an absolute "single point of transit", and still leaving the transit-time consuming option of "going around" for people who were really aggression avoidant or in the event of a stalled or overloaded sector.

- I'm sort of ambivalent about removing external turrets; I'm not wildly against it or for it. I would like to add more "stealth" mechanics for passing borders, and contraband/smuggling concepts, and if this comes to pass then it would be good for there to be some actual risk to making a run at a border, even from the inside, while hotly pursued. Eliminating exterior turrets will practically remove the risk when escaping from "within".

I'd be fine with dropping the armor on external turrets, though, or doing some other mechanic change. Having a different "turret class" for outside would probably not be too bad. I think. Hmm. Not really a "two second" change, but not a huge deal.

Eliminating exterior turrets will practically remove the risk when escaping from "within".

So?

Spy trying to escape to his homeland. They want him dead, not just deported. Especially if he's stealing weapons or something.

Evading spies and thiefs should be detained by border turrets and guards, not local station defenses, already quite easy to avoid.

Inc, consider that every existing AA defenses relies on concentric circles. First circle is composed of border turrets (and still missing border guards and goliath cannons). Second is done by the stations' floating turrets. Third are stations guards.

For next layer we need turrets attached to stations, covering incoming invaders, ordnance and stray roids...

Not sure you're in the right thread here Alloh...

Alloh has a gift for going off topic.

+1 to fogged sectors.

Eliminating exterior turrets will practically remove the risk when escaping from "within".

So?

Soo.. if I'm going to make mechanics where people can try and smuggle things, having some inherent risk (like death) is of value. As we've discussed elsewhere, it's difficult to make defenses in this game that are actually dangerous to even the top 50% of players, without completely cheating in some regard. I can see people trivially escaping if discovered on the way "in", so if discovery on the way "out" has no negative ramifications, then that whole mechanic becomes kind of silly.

Basically, what Pizza said.

But, I guess some of that discussion really hinges on what I'm able to do with defenses in general, like making a flak-style turret (which is part why I was also so interested in that subject.. if I can come up with a defense that's fairly "dangerous" without being "devastating", I'll have a lot more fine-grained control over relative difficulty of things like.. assaulting or escaping borders, and from that, all gameplay that hinges on those locales).

if I'm going to make mechanics where people can try and smuggle things

In a word, Ha. Other than that, no concerns.