| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
   |
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:17:00 -
[1]
I have mentioned parts of this in a few threads over the past months but now the voices tell me I should get it all out in an orderly fashion. It is partly my own combined with ideas borrowed from others. It is long.
I have tried to keep it nice and clean to facilitate comprehension, but feel free to question/comment.
NB: All numbers to be tweaked. Turn it over in your head and try to envision it before commenting.
There will be no tl;dr, I do not cater to the lazy 
Terminology:
Warzone/Theatre: The area of space being fought over, low-sec FW space.
Border-zone: Systems adjacent/connected to systems with hostile occupancy, perhaps 2 deep to widen area.
Plex: The FW specific exploration based encounter sites used to contest systems.
FW is a territorial war as much as one of dogma (or RP if you will).
- Territory: Losing a system to an occupying force should have consequences, if system has a Militia station it will be under new management allowing enemies to dock but denying them access to services. Corporate stations are unaffected.
- Dogma: CCP should have a list of benchmarks, reaching these (for instance 5 systems in X region conquered) puts the writers to work and a statement/news-bulletin released with appropriate propaganda. Bring the RP back to Eve!
FW is a proxy-war between empires. Interfering with an empires business is a bad idea.
- If a third party declares war on a corporation working for a militia, they will be "flagged" to the entire militia while within the theatre for the duration. This allows militia to aid comrades under attack thus removing the cherry-picking of fleets. Outside theatre normal flagging mechanics apply and Concord will prevent militia interference.
- Having an active war with a militia corporation subjects the third party to same rules governing hostile militia members in regards to station docking/services.
On Plexes/NPCs (the backbone of the war):
- Complexes spawn throughout occupied space, they spawn throughout the day. Spawns (locations) based on occupancy rather than sovereignty (removes the DT shuffle in occupied hostile space).
- A system cannot have more than 8-10 complexes at any one time.
- Plexes in the border-zone yield double system VP, these systems are the only ones that can go vulnerable. All systems can still be made contested, even to the brink but never vulnerable until they are enveloped by the border-zone.
- The timer in 'defensive' plexes count down on its own, but resets when a hostile entity enters grid. Offensive operations need only keep a single frigate (theoretically) in a system to halt defensive timers. Makes no sense that pod-pilots have to be present for a navy task force to do their job, represents an unnecessary and tedious mechanic.
- Defensive plex that closes on its own can not respawn in border-zone.
- All acceleration gates removed and replaced with size check on warp-to (think unrestricted majors). Allows for strategic assaults from any angle like thus eliminating the warp-in/gate camps.
- Warp-in point locations in plexes dependent on spawn relative to planetary plane. If more than 1AU above/below plane warp-in is on a vertical line in relation to timer, less than 1AU warp-in is on horizontal plane (to avoid 100km warp-to ending off-grid).
- Timers are 10, 15 and 20 minutes to maintain a good flow of respawns (med/maj reduced 50%). Capture range similarly reduced. Plex grids has a maximum size of 250-300km in diameter.
- NPCs need to be destroyed to take a plex. NPCs should be strong enough to be able to defeat a PvP ship thus requiring either sacrifice by fitting for PvE or team-work. War is not a solo endeavour.
- NPCs have a variety of weapons at their disposal; missiles, short/long range guns and neutralisers (no webs/points though) as well as racial eWar (severely reduced in frequency-of-use compared to now).
Read on!
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:18:00 -
[2]
cont
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 10:18:00 -
[3]
last reserve
|
Condor Amarr
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.21 14:58:00 -
[4]
This seems like a great balance and well thought out way to fix the current nightmare that is FW. I look forward to the replies from the other Militia's also, to see what their take is.
My only suggestion would be that enemy Militia cannot dock, in anyway, in a station which is controlled by its enemy. Would you allow your enemy to knowingly sleep in your house? Of course not. If you venture into the War Zone, you do so knowing that you are in your ship/pod for the duration. If you want to dock/repair/etc, go home to do it.
|
Captain Vaguy
Royal Order of Security Specialists
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 17:56:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Captain Vaguy on 22/12/2009 17:59:00
Veshta you make some very good points here. Thanks for this. I will post this in our militia and drum up support
posted in minmi militia channel: Captain Vaguy > guys this is a good read and well thought out, If you have constructive comments, please post http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1236883&page=1
|
Machiavelli's Nemesis
Angry Mustellid
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 18:18:00 -
[6]
Fully endorse most of these suggestions. An active front-line in the war would focus efforts and add an interesting strategic element to the game (and possibly see a reduction in the occasions where both sides drop a massive blob on each other in one place and leave all the other systems empty besides missionbears).
The one issue I would raise with the suggestion is this:
 Quote:
- Mission contribute 1/4 VP to the system until 80% contested status is met.
- When a border-zone system reaches 80% contested status missions to system count 100% towards system VP allowing for a targeted offensive.
- VP from a mission can never make a system vulnerable but merely take it to the brink (need to have a plex involved for defensive purposes).
In that format, you would have people LP farming the front line to the point where capping a single plex turns the whole system on its head. There is enough carebearing going on already without allowing people to spam PvE encounters to decide what is supposed to be a PvP conflict.
Other than that, though, wholly supported *thumbs up*
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 19:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Machiavelli's Nemesis
The one issue I would raise with the suggestion is this: ..
Note the "NB:" I open with, everything in particular numbers can and should be tweaked.
Although I doubt it would be as bad as you imply since I fully expect the border-zone to be quite lively with fights over every beacon that pops, be it plex or mission.
Missions are peripheral as it is, so they either have to go completely or be included in the carnage .. I opted for the latter.
Missions to a busy system can be near suicide today, making most of them go the front insures that the single bomber lameness is stopped cold.
We can always create a way for us to forcibly close a mission when the runner has been dispatched as we can with "The Fox Hunt" now.
Trick is to make all the facets of FW inter-dependent so that everyone gets to actually fight the war, both when it comes to closing plexes and when an enemy is need of schooling.
FW is supposedly meant for use to get some kills/losses under our belt and learn some of the skills needed for the big outdoors, neither of which I feel the current system provides.
Thanks for comments and endorsements so far, keep them coming and find the holes .. and spread the word, not many even know this forum section exists 
|
Johannes Buckbeak
Minmatar
PoliCratton Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.12.22 19:54:00 -
[8]
Yes, this looks good to me, though I'm sure it would need a lot of testing - it's easy to set up some mechanism with good intentions only to find out it introduces some unwanted consequences. I like the ideas on plex mechanics, like having to kill all the rats. It's always seemed odd to me that I can whizz around the button for 20 minutes, never shoot a thing and suddenly the plex is captured. I'm less sure about removing plex gates - that introduces a set of tactical constraints which give small ships and small gangs an advantage. But it would be worth trying. I also like the idea of making FW missions relevant - I did one when I had just started FW and never since. So I am not sure of all the detail, and it will need to be tested, but I like the overall direction.
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Johannes Buckbeak
..I'm less sure about removing plex gates - that introduces a set of tactical constraints which give small ships and small gangs an advantage...
How so? If size restrictions still apply it will be the same as now, just without the huge benefit of knowing exactly where an enemy is going to come in.
The idea is to all but remove the Rambo solo-FW pilot as far as the war goes, plexing should be a group thing.
Either way, added a revision since I am not even sure a size check is possible on warp-to, but I definitely want to get rid of the single point warp-in.
|
Captain Vaguy
Royal Order of Security Specialists
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 16:22:00 -
[10]
bump
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 16:34:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Jagga Spikes on 25/12/2009 16:35:56
nice read. only thing i could think of adding is:
LP from kills: spread more; ewar and logistics need some love, as well
no neutrals on battlefield: any neutral within plex is considered hostile
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 18:00:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
nice read. only thing i could think of adding is:
LP from kills: spread more;
I think doubling LP compared to today is all we will ever get/need. Any higher and you risk creating the alt-killing loop-hole. Ship prices are already at or below mineral costs in many cases.
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
ewar and logistics need some love, as well
Not sure what you mean by this. I would personally like to see less eWar and logistics, but then I am a gank-fitting lunatic who prefers the in-your-face brawl. A change to the neutral-aid mechanics in general (aggro timer on RR) is far better and would sort almost all the issues for everyone us included.
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
no neutrals on battlefield: any neutral within plex is considered hostile
You talking about NPC response and/or removal of sec status hits when shooting neutrals in plexes I take it?
Won't be needed really, provided neutrals take the same whopping standings hits with militias as inter-militia assassins do .. as long as standings hit doesn't translate to faction standings hit there should still be room for "honest" pirates (we low-seccers have to stick together you know )
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 18:42:00 -
[13]
i'm fine with double LP as you suggested. what i meant is, divide LP from kill over more people, which should also include ewar and logistic pilots. kill in fleet should be considered group action, and reward should be spread across people involved. i prefer combined arms in warfare.
as for "no neutrals", as you described. NPC defenders should attack any non-allied-militia on grid, and militia members could attack any non-allied-militia without sec hit. effectively, pockets of chaos in low-sec :)
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.12.25 19:05:00 -
[14]
Good solid suggestions for improving FW. On the subject of wanting variable warp-in points within a plex - it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for CCP to create an acceleration gate that varies the point at which you are dropped out, or to adjust warp mechanics to deadspace to offer multiple gates at different angles and the code picks the nearest in 3D when you warp to the plex, if gates are indeed required. Not quite as elegant, but it does achieve similar effects, particularly if you can't select the gate by hand, rather only by angular approach.
Whilst it really goes without saying, I'll say it anyway because it got missed the first time FW was developed: in the case of defensive plex changes, whatever changes happen need to ensure that the hostiles present interdicting timers aren't cloaked 
I'd also suggest changing the rewards for plexes to be linked to what actually occurred in the plex - a cakewalk by 30 players against NPCs with no contesting of the timer shouldn't give the same reward as a hard-fought plex. This also gives more incentive to really try and defend and fight for (and in) plexes.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Environmental Effects
|
No Mauk'Ob
Minmatar
Murientor Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.12.26 19:09:00 -
[15]
Overall I really like this.
I would, perhaps, suggest that systems along the border zones could spawn plexes of both factions. so that as an example if Auga is slightly contested it might spawn up to Major Minmatar Plexes and Minor Amarr Plexes, as it grows more contested the mix changes making defense of a system harder than simply keeping people out of a plex. you must do that and take the enemy site as well.
This would also act as a very good indicator of what is going on in a system, If I am seeing Major Enemy installations in Auga then I need to get some work done there. It also slows down defense to a slight degree in border systems. as the Minor Amarr Plex will tick down faster than the Major Minmatar if I ignore it the defense of the Major becomes much less effective.
I could see this leading to some very nice fights back and forth. we would need a detachment to secure the Enemy Installation while we defended our own.
of course it could just lead to more blobbing but either way the borderzone will get that I would imagine. Pushing complexes towards the front lines should give the deeper offensive systems a decent incentive for small gangs. and since you wouldn't need huge fleets to defend most of your rear front systems that might encourage a lot of nice small gang warfare...
Ok so when do we storm the CCP office and shackle them to computers until they implement it? 
-No
------------------------------------------------
Captain No Mauk'Ob
Murientor Tribe Navy 1st MCW
MURIE is Recruiting! |
Flawliss
Gallente
Pilots of True Potential
|
Posted - 2009.12.27 02:26:00 -
[16]
Love the idea. And would love a front line to fight over Most if not all OP suggestions supported
|
Dani Leone
Gallente
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.28 14:07:00 -
[17]
I like it, CCP need to take a good look at this thread if they really want ideas
|
Condor Amarr
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 07:06:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dani Leone
I like it, CCP need to take a good look at this thread if they really want ideas
CCP Soundwave has said in another FW thread that he is looking for ideas on FW, so hopefully this will get some attention.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 20:10:00 -
[19]
"....- 1) The timer in 'defensive' plexes count down on its own, but resets when a hostile entity enters grid. Offensive operations need only keep a single frigate (theoretically) in a system to halt defensive timers. Makes no sense that pod-pilots have to be present for a navy task force to do their job, represents an unnecessary and tedious mechanic.
.....- 2) NPCs need to be destroyed to take a plex. NPCs should be strong enough to be able to defeat a PvP ship thus requiring either sacrifice by fitting for PvE or team-work. War is not a solo endeavour."
You posted many ideas, many I favor, some I don't really care about, and a few, like the above, I disagree with. I numbered two points that I think I disagree with in particular.
With respect to number 1. I'm not sure I understand. If you are capping a defensive plex and a hostile just warps in the timer gets reset? So I have been orbitting the button for 9 minutes one minute to go and an enemy ibis warps on grid and immediately warps off. Now I have to wait another 10 minutes? I would not be in favor of that, but I'm pretty sure I am misunderstanding you.
2) I would just as soon they did away with the npcs. They are really nothing but an annoyance and waste of ammo. I agree people shouldn't be able to cap plexes solo but that should be because the opposing militia is notified of your presence. Anytime a plex is entered the opposing militia should get a message in militia chat or in a new channel specifically for that purpose. That way they can race over to try to defend it and we can have battles with actual people instead or red xs.
I only posted about 2 of the things I did not like. I think fw deserves a much larger overhaul than what you propose. If your gonna dream, dream big. The rp stuff I like but its of minimal significance to me. I couldn't care less if the opposing militia can dock in certain stations. The question that ccp needs to address is whether eve is a sand box or a road to 0.0. If its a sandbox then fw should not necessarily be a financially devastating activity. Maybe nullsec can be for pilots who want the fantastically large isk rewards even though they must risk fantastically large amounts of isk. FW should be more of a middle income thing. We want to field some "BC and down" fleets not titan fleets. But our battles should have some purpose. Right now the pvp battles have no bearing on the war! Make the battles be for something. If ccp wants us to fight over plexes give us a reason to fight over plexes. Also let us know when enemies are in plexes don't force us to spend our precious game time jumping from system to system, station to station, to see if the hostiles are docked or in a plex.
I do not think your changes make fw a sustainable way to play eve. Currently there are no real rewards to fight for and I don't see how your proposal changes that. I think that is the most important thing that needs to be addressed. FW should not just be an isk sink.
|
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 09:51:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Jin Nib on 05/01/2010 09:53:08
Not bad over all.
On plexes.
One point is that plexes should have an immediate benefit for the people running them perhaps LP for being on grid as the timer goes count down. Or perhaps timers should be done away with entirely and replaced with another mechanic. Could be you have to blow certain targets/buildings up, or you have to set certain modules up (supplied by agents at FW stations), which would also bring it more in-line with their current sov system. Or you have to eliminate all NPC's. Whatever. Anything to stop the tedium of ridiculous timers and/or allow more of a response from the militia in general.
The mission section could use a work over as well. The core problem with FW missions is that they tried to port regular PVE missions over from the rest of their stock. It's inherently at odds with the intent of FW. They could be merged with plexes using a little creative thought. Or alternatively if an opposing FW member help thwart you running the mission they could be rewarded. Or you could be tasked with taking certain plexes or systems.
Given how far they have to overhaul the system in the first place there isn't much of a reason to be stuck basing it solely on the current crappy implements.
Edit: Oh yeah and you know what makes TL;DR so bad on these forums? Small white letters on black backgrounds, thank god yours was actually worth it.
-Jin Nib
Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since:
2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:41:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jin Nib
Not bad over all.
Why thank you, most kind
Plex-LP does not really factor into the mechanics which are my primary concern. Like Kill-LP it can always be added which is why I didn't really bother with any mention of rewards.
Missions are an integral part of my grand scheme, can be used to significantly speed up offensive operations but without the flip-ability. Would certainly require enemies to be able to forcibly close them once runner is evicted.
Other than missions being completely detached from the wars and being woefully easy/fast I do not generally see any issues with them so tried to keep it simple (CCP likes simple I think )
Adopting Sov Mk.II for use in FW ... hmmm. Might actually work, lets see:
- Every system has 5 static plexes, colour coded on overview as per ownership/status.
- Each plex has a control unit (CU) determining "ownership".
- Aggressor enters, anchors scrambler and proceeds to destroy CU.
- Can take over one plex per system in hostile sovereign space a day.
- Announce "scrambler anchoring in X system" through militia interface to allow defence/counter-attacks.
- Hold all 5 plexes in a system for 2-3 days to occupy system (about a week to complete capture).
|
Condor Amarr
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 10:46:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Condor Amarr on 05/01/2010 10:47:07
Edited by: Condor Amarr on 05/01/2010 10:46:39
Originally by: Cearain
Anytime a plex is entered the opposing militia should get a message in militia chat or in a new channel specifically for that purpose. That way they can race over to try to defend it and we can have battles with actual people instead or red xs.
I really like this idea. I would add (although I am sure you intended this anyway) that the warning would need to include what size the plex is (if that is the future direction FW takes, with different plex sizes).
[img
http://www.evegamer.com/EVE2/sigs/PIE/CondorAmarr_001a.jpg[/img] |
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 11:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Veshta Yoshida
Plex-LP... ...(CCP likes simple I think )
Ah I see, my bad. I misread the focus you were going for.
Originally by: Veshta Yoshida
Adopting Sov Mk.II for use in FW ... hmmm. Might actually work, lets see:
- Every system has 5 static plexes, colour coded on overview as per ownership/status.
- Each plex has a control unit (CU) determining "ownership".
- Aggressor enters, anchors scrambler and proceeds to destroy CU.
- Can take over one plex per system in hostile sovereign space a day.
- Announce "scrambler anchoring in X system" through militia interface to allow defence/counter-attacks.
- Hold all 5 plexes in a system for 2-3 days to occupy system (about a week to complete capture).
Nice, that (or a variation thereof) sounds a lot more fun to me, not to mention opening up all sorts of future possibilities should they ever desire them. It would also bring it in-line with their recent changes in 0.0.
-Jin Nib
Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since:
2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
Kade Jeekin
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 11:44:00 -
[24]
First my suggestions:
- Require all NPC's to be eliminated to allow capture
- Get rid of FW missions
- Give LP for plex active capture/defend
- No docking in enemy occupied systems
- Either keep racial flavour of NPC Ewar but fix the counter, eg ECCM vs ECM, or
Equalise NPC Ewar
- More LP for kills
- Bounties on enemy faction ship kills based on LP gain
- Bounties for system/plex capture based on standings gain
- Wardec on militia corp extends to whole militia
- Unable to wardec a corp in the same militia as your corp
Now to yours:
FW is a territorial war as much as one of dogma - pretty much in agreement but prefer a more radical, no docking in enemy occupied systems, approach.
FW is a proxy-war between empires - also in agreement
On Plexes/NPCs (the backbone of the war) - Pretty much agree with everything except:
- The subtitle is your opinion, others would say that the free wardec is the backbone.
- Defensive plex that closes on its own can not respawn in border-zone. Why not?
- The more systems a militia holds above the starting point the harder (more VP needed) future conquests become. Why?
On Missions/On Combat - I suggest the complete removal of all FW missions and replacing their income/lp/standing supply role with LP/bounties for plex/system capture and enemy faction ship kills.
On the UI/Feedback - in broad agreement
---------------------------------------
Outface the depths of evil with clarity
--------------------------------------- |
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 12:03:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kade Jeekin
Defensive plex that closes on its own can not respawn in border-zone. Why not?
Oh right that reminds me. In the OP haveing an enemy completely reset a timer just by showing up and leaving is untenable. At the most it should reverse the timer direction and having to opposing FW'ers on the field should cause it to stay still. TBH I think your plan of being able to start a timer then bugger off is not one that fixes a broken mechanic or more importantly encourages pvp.
-Jin Nib
Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since:
2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.05 12:27:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kade Jeekin
First my suggestions:...
Most of those points are included in my vision in one form or another.
My main concern is to have a working mechanism, Rules of War if you like. Rewards/incentives can be added at any time so not paramount to me.
Make the standings hit from blue-on-blue apply in all circumstances and the whole wardec thing sorts itself.
There has been numerous calls for docking rights based on occupancy, it will never happen, too harsh if you ask me .. people have lives and those pesky things sometimes call people away in a hurry.
Originally by: Kade Jeekin
Now to yours:...
Those "others" you refer to I generally consider to be morons, give or take a few
FW IS exactly what I stipulated, why else would CCP launch it to such fanfare while practically replacing all 4 governments, giving them a more aggressive posture?
- If defensive plexes were to close and spawn in border-zone there would be absolutely no reason to ever leave the massive blob camping the border, just sit and wait for a spawn .. wouldn't be much fun for anyone.
By encouraging offensive/defensive operations to feed the front with plexes you get tons of those intense solo/small-gang fights going.
Without the scaling on VP it will inevitably end up with a "numbers > all" scenario. Scaling and the geographical bottlenecks that exist will make it almost impossible to overrun the opponent like Caldari did to Gallente for example.
Also it simulates the resource strain of land-grab wars that are too successful .. history is my guide
There is no need to abolish missions, just make them relevant and harder to do.
There are times when the best of us have to take a time-out for various reasons (usually ISK ) but are reluctant to leave the theatre ..
With a strategic value to doing said missions in the right circumstances (ie. in the border-zone) they can be great tools in the larger scheme.
Trying to make the FW-Sov Mk.II brain-fart fit in with my border-zone so a bit pre-occupied, hope it still made sense.
|
KillJoy Tseng
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 00:49:00 -
[27]
For the most part, yeah. A few little points.
Tweaking bunker HP... I'm not sure the good it will do in all honesty. Near the "border zone" people just bring as many and as heavy of ships as it take - may see more use of dreads. For the systems I was around when we took the bunkers of, even with very limited initial forces shooting at the bunkers, I never saw any combat. Through people we had in fleet that had alts in the other militia (yeah, I know; not EM actually but there's always a few militia spies) there was no sign that anyone even realized these systems went vulnerable. *DEFINITELY* need some sign past someone hammering the system map and hoping it refreshes, or altscouts in every system. And also, on some level, how much more HP? POS shoots are bad enough. But yes, good god yes, the last taken plex respawning in system. I remember Brin, sitting vulnerable until DT because no plex would spawn there and it was asinine.
I still don't agree with your view on the role of NPCs in all of this, but them not aggressing past capture range (or so) is far better as it doesn't automatically cripple things. Still, we're getting into ship biases and that bothers me. From experience, using PVP biased ships in teams to kill NPCs off eats nontrivial amounts of ammunition - aside from Amarr boats and droneboats. Defenders could quite easily hide under the umbrella of NPCs with sniper fits - but pulses running scorch in many cases approximates that even for things potent at close range. I would quite prefer if "train Amarr" weren't the only practical answer for plexing ships - things finally changed where I don't hear it used as the answer for BCs and BSes after all... Also, I'm far from a hundred percent confident in the ability of NPCs to be tweaked for rough parity or any modi****of intelligence.
The border stuff, yeah, no, maybe - I think that will bring to the forefront a lot of the "blobbing" you seem set against, but I personally don't really see that as a downside necessarily.
Rest of it ranges from "yes yes oh god yes" (RP elements) to "meh, no clue" (mission stuff) though I'm aware how badly the RP side could backfire - look at the poor Gallente RPers. Also, when you speak of defensives counting down themselves, were you meaning still hidden ones, or only ones that have been opened?
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 19:27:00 -
[28]
If only the borders can go vulnerable wont that just encourage blobs? I think by keeping things spread out we are more likely to avoid blobbing ftw, don't you?
|
Insa Rexion
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 19:36:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Veshta Yoshida
There has been numerous calls for docking rights based on occupancy, it will never happen, too harsh if you ask me .. people have lives and those pesky things sometimes call people away in a hurry.
It happens in 0.0 and besides, you can still just log off in space
--------------------------------------------
well mannered ****ole |
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 20:40:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Veshta Yoshida on 07/01/2010 20:44:20
Originally by: KillJoy Tseng
For the most part, yeah. A few little points.
Bunker was added by CCP to provide fights, preferably capital fights (they said the same about unrestricteds  ) .. never happened as far as I know. HP were already doubled once and resulted in bunker-buster crews doubling in size thus reducing chance of fight even more.
NPC's are necessary if the current timer based system is maintained. Otherwise all we need is a frigate with propulsion mod to cap anything we like .. makes for crappy gameplay, zero fights and boredom.
Not sure if it is possible (code wise) to countdown/despawn unopened plexes, so they would probably have to be opened "manually" by defensive personnel.
I fully expect the border-zones to be the most active and camped areas of the theatre, same as you have now really with people poking each other from neighbouring systems (kills on Amarr/Minmatar front is mostly in 2-3 systems between Dal and Kamela for instance).
The idea is to give the war structure and actual geography complete with supply lines, my RTS nerves are frazzled from all the deep-system captures - completely illogical from a strategic point-of-view.
A border-zone would consist of numerous systems, both offensive and defensive so the uber-blob won't fare very well except if its in a bottleneck system, my solution "forces" the blob to remain semi-stationary leaving the rest of space open for the small-gang/solo stuff.
My latest brain-fart may be able to get rid of plex timers, NPCs and all the ills they represent. Still turning it over in my head so find the snags and will add a revision when done (see post 21).
Originally by: Insa Rexion
It happens in 0.0 and besides, you can still just log off in space
Null-sec player owned stations, sure .. those are not comparable though, we are talking NPC stations. I just don't think it is even possible for CCP to disallow docking in some NPC stations and not others, especially not when location is thrown in as variable.
Removing services (if even that is possible) is more than enough for our purposes, would eradicate the dock-monkeys and make assaults a lot more difficult in systems when no repair is available .. remember you can't undock if your ship is damaged to below zero with plates removed (or something to that effect, or was that changed?) ..
Originally by: Cearain
If only the borders can go vulnerable wont that just encourage blobs? I think by keeping things spread out we are more likely to avoid blobbing ftw, don't you?
It is spread out now and the blobs are omni-present anyway. Currently the blobs are mobile and will go roaming anywhere even high-sec.
Tethering them to a specific area (border-zone) will free up a lot of space for the fun stuff .. blobs can't be eliminated, but I'll be damned if I won't try to limit their effectiveness and discourage them
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |