Thursday, January 7, 2010

Safer? Closing the Static or "Verging" It

Had this debate with another corpie last night in regards to what to do with the Static Wormholes in our system prior to starting organized mining ops or pack hunts.

I argue that bring both Statics to the verge of collapse, or "Verging" them, is not as safe for the operation, but better for the duration of the hole.

Even if the hole is on the verge, coverts and bombers can still get through and cause significant damage to a fleet mining op. On the other hand, closing the holes, scanning down the new holes, but not warping too it, means that short of an incoming K162 hole, there is no "Active" way into the hole. For the short term of the mining op this is safer as the chance of a K162 opening is smaller then someone coming accross a K162 in either low sec or the neighboring Class 2. It is also easier to detect a new hole in the system and deal with it in a timely manner.

Now for the time we are offline, I agree having the statics on the verge is better, as it discourages or prevents any large scale "movement" through our hole. Makes the POS safer (though really is someone going to come after a Large POS in a Class 2?) by making it almost impossible to get a fleet of anything bigger then a breadbox into the hole. But more important in my mind is not allowing a viable exit to low sec for others to use for fuel or empire runs and feel the need to "camp" the route and prevent our operations.

This debate will obviously extend to the neighboring system when we start to roam. The assumption should be that all holes in that system are open with the K162's spawned. So do you close the holes to gain "control" of the exit, or verge them?

So what are others doing, especially smaller corps, when they have a very consistant play time and really want to make the hole as "safe" as possible?

Fly Safe,


  1. Usually we don't bother. We keep an eye on directional, and if the connecting system has a POS and we expect company (rather than being on the offensive which would be what we do in most cases) and we don't want to be bothered we bubble it and keep a cloaked ship there to see if anyone jumps through.

    On some occasions though I've put some SBs inside a near critical wormhole and even managed to net some nice kills off folks who thought they where safe. So it's better to completely collapse them if you expect company. But you can't stay hidden forever though.

    And also I believe that wormholes do not work as the rest of the signatures in wspace when it comes to being spawned only if you warp to them. In fact, I believe it doesn't even matter if you scan them down or not. They just spawn on their schedule and despawn as needed.

    What might be happening is that the K162 is not spawned until you warp to it. Now that might be the case, and the verdict is still out there.. lots of different opinions on the subject.

  2. I did have an interesting series of events in Mid December where the signatures for the WH were staying around much longer then the 16 and 24 hours their timers would indicate. I did not fly to the grid and had them last almost 3 days till a K162 appeared in system and I assume he flew to the grid. Unfortunetly with the need to find paths in and the number of inbound holes we have seen in last few weeks I have not been able to replicate the experience.

    As for safety, I think one the major keys is to keep the K162's from spawning from your static wormholes. I have heard that flying to the static wormhole's grid opens the K162, and I have heard you have to fly through the hole to spawn the K162. So I would rather be on the safe side and not fly to the grid.

    Overall I prefer to be as closed in as possible, and that means "controlling" the static wormholes and not allowing two openings to get in the wormhole that are under our direct control.

    Fly Safe,