Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 20:08:00 -
[1]
The basis of this idea is to simulate crops to burn. Pillaging to be done by roaming gangs and enemies in Sovereign Space.
First:
Make IHUB upgrades not simply a massive module plugged into a giant structure.
Pirate Entrapment Arrays, Ore Prospecting Arrays, etc- These would all be small structures deployed automatically, over time, across the system they have been plugged into.
Arrays would appear near asteroid belts, and around planets. These arrays would have relatively low HP compared to most structures and would be able to be destroyed by small gangs of 5-10 people with relative ease- the drawback being that there are a lot of them scattered to all ends of the system.
The process of destroying these arrays would cause direct damage to their respective IHUB levels, and would also slow down the respawn times for anomalies in those systems.
Have them drop some loot and salvage and you've got a little immediate incentive to wipe these things out. Add in NPC maintenance convoys (See this) and you've got something that feels more like a living breathing solar system.
This is essentially so that we can make infrastructure in a solar system be at risk, for once. Now that POS's are not a part of Sovereignty I'd like to see them follow the same course of vulnerability, but this is the best solution I can think of atm.
Anything at add?
|
Chiralos
Merchant Princes
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 08:25:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Chiralos on 07/09/2010 08:26:19 I think the goal is sound. To spread combat around more (the "strategic game design" solution to lag), the player who puts 1000 ships in one spot needs to lose to the player who puts 100 ships in 10 places.
I think the key is there needs to be a mechanic that makes it inefficient use of pilot time for the attacker to blob up. If it is just as fast for your blob to roll through a series of "crops" (or "convoys") one after another with concentrated firepower as it is to split up and take them on simultaneously, you haven't beaten the blob.
One mechanism might be to have structures that take damage at some maximum rate (unlike starbases, station services, exploration spawns, SBUs etc).
Another mechanic might be just to have a lot (unlimited number ?) of small targets - in which case the time taken to probe them down, warp to and lock them is your incentive to split up into lots of small gangs.
Assuming the attacker does have an incentive to split up into optimal sized attack groups, the defender can still blob up; but if there are enough targets the attacker can just withdraw and make the blobbing defender play whack-a-mole.
Having lots of small targets pushes things from direct PvP to competitive PvE. I'm not sure how else you deal with time-zones though, since "reinforcement timer" systems seem to call for blobs. Amarr Victor. |
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 08:38:00 -
[3]
I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing for you to be able to kill the enemy while they're "sleeping", and I think CCP should have implemented more ways to passively defend a system rather than making things invulnerable for long periods of time.
I think this idea, here, can do many things to help Eve.
First off, there exists very little incentive for small gang warfare. Sure it makes you quick and easy to move, but it doesn't matter how fast you move when gathering intel is as easy as glancing at local every now and then. By providing multitudes of small targets, it will make small gangs actually be able to do something, and split up the larger gangs so that they can cover more ground at a faster pace.
Second, it will help make solar systems start feeling large again. When you've got prospecting and entrapment arrays spread in orbit around moons and planets roughly 300-400 km from eachother (So each time you move to a new grid in orbit around a planet, you'll probably come across another satellite) things start to actually seem... substantial. For being such a large universe, there is a severe lack of environment. Solar Systems and the entities that reside within them need to stop being depicted as "one big hunk of technology" floating in orbit somewhere, but instead as a massive intricate network of smaller objects.
|
Caldari 5
Amarr The Element Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 08:57:00 -
[4]
So how about structures that have about the same HP as 2 or 3 Battleships
There are 6 of these Structures around every Celestial, you have to probe them down, they are on 6 different Grids, you have to have at least 1 fleet member on half of the grids in order to damage them?
|
Leovarian Lavitz
Minmatar Ghost Tribal Credit Union Sspectre
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 09:04:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Leovarian Lavitz on 07/09/2010 09:06:14 If you truly wish to split the fleets, then you have to have simultaneous completion objectives. I <3 blobbing. Look at my alliance's wiki. I'm going to fly with as many of my fellow pilots as possible. I trained leadership and corporation management, I intend to get maximum use of my skills!! :3
To split up that attitude, I suggest simultaneous completion objectives: Fleet A has to power down site A while as swarms of NPCs are coming in on them, but the site can only be destroyed if sites A, b, c, d, e, and F are all also powered down. Neuts are a good use here. If any of the sites regain power, then they are all invulnerable to HP damage again. Thus the forces must be split in order to maintain the Power drain on the systems and prevent them from powering up again. During this time they are destroyed.
:3
I don't support this thread because it isn't balanced with the defender (who would bring a blob to the first fleet it encountered.)
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 16:39:00 -
[6]
If you need simultaneous completion objectives...
Make each planet's satellites have a singular defense grid. The more you attack it at a single point, the stronger it is perhaps.
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium.
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 16:41:00 -
[7]
Knock down station services to less than 1 million HP each and I think the same effect would be achieved.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 17:38:00 -
[8]
The concept is similar to what I have been lobbying for the past few months but your implementation is a griefers wet dream. Standard Hac gangs today number 25-30 people or so, in your scheme they could take out 3-4 'nodes' at a time - now add the fact that we have high damage cloackers in the form of T3 and a defender has no hope in hell of preventing his systems from being torched.
You need to have a way for a defending entity to stop/prevent/minimize the damage done by roaming gangs or it will demolish every single small entity currently holding space (they rarely have manpower to hunt multiple gangs 23/7).
|
Dmoney3788
THE DISC
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 18:10:00 -
[9]
Interesting idea. Perhaps if the ihub could have light defenses and the upgrades worked like POS modules, where you can incapacitate them, this might work a little better. As it is the better upgrades are annoyingly large and expensive, it would be a major pain to have to replace them every time a small roaming gang came thru your system. The only problem I see with this is it makes it much harder for the defenders to defend their upgrades.
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 18:16:00 -
[10]
To keep single ships, unscannables, etc, from abusing these it wouldn't be too big of a deal to provide these satellites with minor defenses. Enough to threaten a Stealth Bomber or lightly tanked Recon, but not for much else. As far as defending multiple points goes... It's usually the defender who has greater numbers, as it's their home system.
Also, as far as passive defenses go, I tried to not to touch on that just yet because at the first mention of "sentry turrets" the trolls come running, frothing at the mouth with torches in hand.
|
|
Dmoney3788
THE DISC
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 19:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Rhadia To keep single ships, unscannables, etc, from abusing these it wouldn't be too big of a deal to provide these satellites with minor defenses. Enough to threaten a Stealth Bomber or lightly tanked Recon, but not for much else. As far as defending multiple points goes... It's usually the defender who has greater numbers, as it's their home system.
Also, as far as passive defenses go, I tried to not to touch on that just yet because at the first mention of "sentry turrets" the trolls come running, frothing at the mouth with torches in hand.
Of course the defender has the greater numbers, but the attacker holds has all the keys as creating a 1 hour pvp OP is much easier than creating a 23/7 camp just in case someone might want to down your ihub upgrades.
|
spoon reaver
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 19:50:00 -
[12]
i see where this is going and i agree that more interaction is needed.. but doing it this way your only going to make the big empires even more dominant
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 20:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: spoon reaver i see where this is going and i agree that more interaction is needed.. but doing it this way your only going to make the big empires even more dominant
How so? I see the opposite effect. This will give a way for smaller entities to actually damage sovereign space of larger alliances, whereas currently there is no way.
|
spoon reaver
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 20:59:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Rhadia
Originally by: spoon reaver i see where this is going and i agree that more interaction is needed.. but doing it this way your only going to make the big empires even more dominant
How so? I see the opposite effect. This will give a way for smaller entities to actually damage sovereign space of larger alliances, whereas currently there is no way.
I see this point of view as well.. it would bring in commando style fighting before blobs where common practice being that eve population wasn't large enough to support blob fighting. Also would bring in quality ship fittings and good ol fashion tactics instead of zerg inspired cheap ships to flood enemy space til either side dies from attrition.
but one question and im hopping you have a good answer to inspire hope for me and my lads. that these large empires also have large quantities of pilots at their disposal.. either quality or cannon fodder they normally stile have alot of ships to defend and attack at the same time. what would a small corp or alliance be able to do to defend itself and attack against a larger more unit disposable fleet that's easily capable to do both at the same time? Or is it back right where it was again where the larger empires will increase their dominion because they already have a larger logistics capable front line and strike like they always do before the corp can even establish itself in the region they want to hide in before they make their move.
Im interested but i just feel somethings are lacking but i cannot put my finger on it
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 23:43:00 -
[15]
Unfortunately there's no comfort I can give you, there. While the zerg tactics are lame and uninspired, there will always be some sort of advantage given to those with the greater numbers.
I will say however, that this idea was not intended to give the small guy an advantage, but simply give him options- Which is far more than we can speak of with current game mechanics.
I have seen some other threads however that are aimed at giving smaller factions the ability to persist against foes much larger than them. This one in particular.
|
spoon reaver
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 00:26:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Rhadia Unfortunately there's no comfort I can give you, there. While the zerg tactics are lame and uninspired, there will always be some sort of advantage given to those with the greater numbers.
I will say however, that this idea was not intended to give the small guy an advantage, but simply give him options- Which is far more than we can speak of with current game mechanics.
I have seen some other threads however that are aimed at giving smaller factions the ability to persist against foes much larger than them. This one in particular.
wow.. that was a good read. and it would do more then just give a chance to build secretly. if this worked out as hoped and it would be prosperous and bringing in alot of people in null sec for the decreased chance of getting found and hot dropped. There is alot of empty space in null. so much so you have to wonder what empires are doing with all of it.. but basically the answer is nothing. but all it takes is a scout to find a a new corp trying to build their dream of whatever form and the Demi god empire that feels threatened the most (usually where that colony is closest 2) would hot drop a few carriers or a few hundred ships to burn them out of the system. The link you showed me gave an idea of how to solve or at least give a better chance of a single corp or a small alliance the capability to succeed in null space even if an old empires shadow is nearby.
Also this same mechanic can also bring the feeling of exploration back into eve cause your never now what exactly you might warp into
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 00:34:00 -
[17]
Exactly. That OP seems to have let his thread die, but we agree on many points. I'll probably revive it myself pretty soon in a new thread and see if I can rally some more support before I take it to the Assembly Hall.
|
spoon reaver
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 01:00:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rhadia Exactly. That OP seems to have let his thread die, but we agree on many points. I'll probably revive it myself pretty soon in a new thread and see if I can rally some more support before I take it to the Assembly Hall.
With the thread you created and the thread you have shown ..combine them and you got yourself a new inner working.
Some people would probably disagree and probably because it would feel like it would be unbalanced and untamed.
But the general idea is for it to be untamed.. everything has a counter either by ship or by tactics but the counter to oversize empires have little counter at all. Another empire? hardly.. most empires when they fight each other end up as a stale mate or a little bit of lost territory on most occasions.. few are exceptions like CVA for example.
In history the only real way to see an empire crumble and disperse is for it to kill itself. Thus brings the question ..how many more years is it going to take for another empire to vanish to make room for the rest of us that don't want to beg to become a pet for an already existing super power?
This thread if implemented in some form or fashion would bring alot of joy to null sec pilots that have been booted out time after time because of the old empires greedy hands. also probably bring alot of joy to the current null pilots for no longer having to see empty space that stretches on forever and also for the people of low sec who make a living preying on passerby's.. having a larger null population would also increase traffic through low sec where pirates had been wishing for a long time that their space needs more people.
|
Dmoney3788
THE DISC
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 01:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: spoon reaver In history the only real way to see an empire crumble and disperse is for it to kill itself. Thus brings the question ..how many more years is it going to take for another empire to vanish to make room for the rest of us that don't want to beg to become a pet for an already existing super power?
Well atlas fell fairly quickly...just sayin.
|
spoon reaver
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 01:47:00 -
[20]
Edited by: spoon reaver on 08/09/2010 01:47:51
Originally by: Dmoney3788 Well atlas fell fairly quickly...just sayin.
I did not know this
any you tube vids of their agonizing demise?
|
|
Dmoney3788
THE DISC
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 02:02:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Dmoney3788 on 08/09/2010 02:03:20 Edited by: Dmoney3788 on 08/09/2010 02:02:49 I'm not sure where most ppl get their information, but I found this eve news website and read the articles there. Basically you should probably start by going back to around August 20 or so and read up on anything related to atlas and you should get the picture.
http://www.evenews24.com/?s=atlas alliance
-edit, forgot the link -edit, making the link clickable
|
Rhadia
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 03:37:00 -
[22]
Dead Space Revisted
Lets rally as much support for these ideas as we can, I think using both there could be many great new aspects of Eve to enjoy.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 07:35:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Rhadia Dead Space Revisted...
Deadspace MWD is coming back. It was removed in the ludicrous speed era due to missions being lol-kited .. this is no longer the case. Since it is possible to warp from DED to normal space, the potential use of it as an offensive tool is staggering .. heaps better than the silly vulnerable staging POS's.
It does have merit in low-sec as part of a larger overhaul complete with pirate benefits but for null? Problems created would far outweigh problems solved I fear, power-blocs remain untouched with new weapon in arsenal, small-timers are still stomped.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |