Wormhole types

14th November 2011 – 7.55 pm

After compiling my collection of wormhole colours I realised I was perhaps missing an important component, that of the wormhole's designation. The letter and number combination is used to identify crucial information, mostly used to determine whether a wormhole is safe to pass through or help in the calculations for collapsing a wormhole. I didn't include the designation in my original posting partly because it was outside the remit of what I was trying to achieve, which was to identify w-space class by colour, and partly because it would have significantly delayed the post, as I only needed to find one wormhole to get a pair of images but would have needed to find two distinct wormholes to get the respective designations.

Not only would gathering the designations have taken a lot more time and scanning but the information is freely available on various other sites, easily found by a simple search on any of the designations. I saw no reason to duplicate the effort or information, particularly as the other sites have a complete list of wormhole designations, accompanied by durations and mass limits of wormholes. Kudos to the compilers of these lists for taking the time to research and format the information and, most importantly, knowing where to look. Never the less, I started creating my own table of designations because I believe the lists are missing one important detail.

Each list I have found detailing wormhole types has information about the designation, single-jump mass limit, overall mass limit, wormhole duration, and w-space class or k-space security level of the destination system. What the lists don't provide is the origin system of the wormhole. It may not seem initially important to give that information, as you must after all be in the origin system in order to see the specific designation and not the K162 signifying an exit, but this quote from the EVE University site has spurred me to compile my local data in to this post:

The k162 will give more approximate information about the entrance system by using 'show info', but it's impossible to determine original mass/time limits.

I do not mean to pick on EVE University, as all lists imply the same, but know your wormhole colours and understand that the designation determines the origin system as well as the destination system, and you can infer the mass and time limits of the wormhole. It is only 'impossible to determine' the limits if there is no way to link the origin system to the designation, and it just so happens that the currently available lists do not provide this information.

[Edit: I note that the EVE University guide to wormholes actually has a misleading error in the table for wormhole names by destination. It has rows for 'intra-k-space wormholes', based on security status, but even though the wormholes connect to k-space most of those listed actually originate in w-space. This is only really a labelling problem, but it highlights the misinformation I aim to correct with my own table.]

Experience and my own colour guide can help you determine the class of w-space is on the other side of the wormhole, and now, with the following table, you will also be able to determine the mass and time limits of the wormhole, all without having to jump through. At least, when cross-referencing the wormhole type determined here with a site detailing information on that type, which I have linked to but am not duplicating. I am not intending this to be the definitive guide, as others have far more information, simply showing that there is an important extra column needed in the other guides so that it will no longer be considered impossible to tell what wormhole you are looking at when confronted with a K162.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 High Low Null
C1 H121 C125 O833 M609 L614 S804 N110 J244 Z060
C2 Z647 D382 O477 Y683 N062 R474 B274 A239 E545
C248
C3 V301 I182 N968 T405 N770 A982 D845 U210 K346
C4 P060 N766 C247 X877 H900 U574
C5 Y790 D364 M267 E175 H296 V753 D792 C140 Z142
C6 Q317 G024 L477 Z457 V911 W237 D792 C140 Z142
High Z971 R943 X702 M555 B041 A641 R051 V283
Low Z971 R943 X702 N432 U319 B449 N944 S199
Null Z971 R943 X702 N432 U319 B449 N944 S199

The rows indicate the originating system, the columns the destination. Determining the wormhole type from looking at a K162 can feel a little backwards using the table, but it should be clear with a little thought. For example, if you are in a class 4 system and drop out of warp to see a K162 that, from its colour, you recognise comes from a class 3 system, you can determine from looking at which wormhole connects from a C3 to a C4 that the wormhole is of type T405. This now gives you the information required to find the wormhole's mass and time limits as normal.

I have read comments that question the utility of my matrix of wormhole colours, and no doubt the same comments will feel applicable to the above table. The comments generally ask why there is a need to rely on memorising colours when normally used sources of information will tell you where the wormhole leads, and jumping through a K162 will tell you exactly what system lies on the other side. It's a good question, particularly when understood that many pilots refer to more complete databases when exploring, letting them know the system class, the effects of any phenomenon there, how many jumps have been recorded, along with Sleeper kills and capsuleer ship kills.

Personally, I prefer to explore using my wits and information I can gather myself. It is perhaps a naive way to live in w-space but I feel it connects me more to the events around me than getting a website to tell me everything. But even if that weren't the case, there is a lot to be said for gathering as much information as possible without putting yourself in harm's way, and there is no simpler way to avoid a threat than by not jumping through every wormhole you find. If you can drop out of warp far from a wormhole and determine all of its statistics without having to jump then surely that is safer than having to jump through just to get its designation. You may need to jump through anyway, in order to scout thoroughly, but getting as much information as possible before the jump should be a goal of any competent scout.

The table is, naturally, incomplete and will likely remain that way for a while to come. There is also some duplication, notably when known space connects with w-space, but not ambiguously so, as each type has the same characteristics regardless of where it appears. There may be the possibility of two different types leading from the same class to a different class of w-space, but I have yet to encounter this situation. There may even be an error or two. As with the matrix of wormhole colours I will update the above table as and when I uncover new information along my travels.

  1. 26 Responses to “Wormhole types”

  2. In fact, the table will remain incomplete, as it seems that class 4 w-space never connects to known space.

    By pjharvey on Nov 14, 2011

  3. That would explain why I never had a direct highsec-C4 k162 in my months of living in a C4...

    By Planetary Genocide on Nov 15, 2011

  4. I've seen many high sec to high sec WH's, all designated A641.

    By WH Carebear on Nov 15, 2011

  5. Also, I found a C1 to C5 WH last night, It was an L614.

    By WH Carebear on Nov 15, 2011

  6. Thanks, Carebear, I'll add them both.

    By pjharvey on Nov 15, 2011

  7. PG, even after living in a class 4 system for a long time it wasn't until I read Nathan Jameson's wormhole guide that I was made aware that C4s don't connect to k-space. I had to dredge my memory, and ask both Kename Fin and Mick Straih to confirm that we'd never seen such a wormhole. It seems to be established wisdom, if not that widely known.

    By pjharvey on Nov 15, 2011

  8. Having lived in a c2 with a c4 static for a long time I can confirm the never seen an outbound C4>K space.

    Im glad someone else doesn't get put off by coming up to an EOL or Half massed K162 :P.

    I am still trying to work out if the EOL graphics get more "bouncy" as the WH gets more and more EOL but short of staring at a known WH going EOL for 4 hours and counting its fluctatuions and working out the BOM (bounce per minute) I will just continue to wonder :).

    By Talonaer on Nov 16, 2011

  9. 'Bounce per minute', that's a rather splendid metric. I've read comments elsewhere suggesting that it's possible to age wormholes by their wobble, and even though there is a clear difference between superstable, stable, and unstable, I have never been able to determine how close to death any EOL may be by wobble alone. They look the same to me right to the point of collapse. Then again, I can't say I've taken time to study the phenomenon either.

    And I'm just as likely to leave an EOL wormhole alone than jump through, but I do take the occasional risk.

    By pjharvey on Nov 16, 2011

  10. With my ongoing complete lack of success at finding targets maybe I shall take it unpon myself to work out some relavant BPM's, really taking WH diving to the narrow edge :P.

    By Talonaer on Nov 16, 2011

  11. To the edge of your sanity, yep. Best of luck!

    By pjharvey on Nov 16, 2011

  12. I have had a couple of High > Null connections V283 if you want to add to your list.

    Great blog,

    Regards

    Amarrahh

    By amarrahh on Nov 17, 2011

  13. Added. Thanks, Amarrahh. That's quite a stutter you have.

    By pjharvey on Nov 17, 2011

  14. Some holes in the table have been filled, thanks to a reader who sent me a list of wormhole information in a spreadsheet that is far more comprehensive than mine. Go ahead, mystery man, take a bow!

    By pjharvey on Feb 19, 2012

  15. Another addition: R943s can also go from 0.0 > C2 space. Saw one leading out of a GSF system in Branch into a rather messy C2 chain I was working the other day.

    By Tarunik on Jun 29, 2012

  16. Thanks, red. The null-to-C2 R943 has been added to the table.

    By pjharvey on Jun 30, 2012

  17. hey pj, you might want to cross reference and fill in some gaps from St Mio's site,

    http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/dsp/nullsec.html

    i noticed nullsec to c2 is missing (R943), perhaps there are more??

    By Trip on Nov 15, 2012

  18. Thanks, Trip. I'll take a look.

    By pjharvey on Nov 15, 2012

  19. R943 is also from nullsec to C2

    By Chapal on Nov 29, 2012

  20. Oups, didn't see that lots of people said that before me... (R943...). But it's still not in the table (even though you said it has been added on June 30)

    By Chapal on Nov 30, 2012

  21. How rum. I'm not quite sure what happened there.

    Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy, Chapal. Hopefully the null-sec→C2 R943 wormhole is now actually added to the table.

    By pjharvey on Nov 30, 2012

  22. Just for spamming a little bit more the comments, I confirm that I see it now !

    By Chapal on Nov 30, 2012

  23. Another note: I found a Z971 inbound to a C1 from 0.0 space during some scanning the other day...so add that, too :)

    By Tarunik on Dec 5, 2012

  24. Thanks, red. It's now added.

    By pjharvey on Dec 16, 2012

  25. I think that the remaining low to C6 and null to C6 are U319.
    I can confirm the low to C6 exists as I already saw some but I'm unsure of the name.

    By Ryanis on Aug 13, 2013

  26. Also, the High to C6 is B041.
    You can confirm it on the wiki (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Wormhole).

    (sorry for 2x post)

    By Ryanis on Aug 13, 2013

  27. Thanks, Ryanis. I've updated the table, which looks pretty complete now.

    By pjharvey on Aug 13, 2013

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed.