Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tiberyya Za
Gallente Bellum Aeternus The Makhai
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 21:39:00 -
[1]
Move gate camps to the opposite side of the gate. Prevent the use of warp disrupting technology within 50km of a gate. Use a system similar to what exists in complexes where you have to kill all the enemy ships before the gate unlocks, or add a new deployable structure that shuts down the star gate and has to be destroyed or hacked.
A) Prevents the lag of entering a system from becoming such a large factor in fleet battles.
B) Spreads out players. If a POS in system x is going to be attacked, then the defense will be in the next system instead of the 'in' gate in the same system.
C) Opens up 0.0 more. Players can't camp the side of the gate opposite lowsec so there will be fewer bottlenecks.
D) Makes space more defensible. Stargates will be locked down and will require a fleet to open. The defender could even charge to let certain people in, like a tollbooth.
E) Brings more strategy into fleet battles. The attacking fleet will be able to gather up and warp into the battle in formation at varying ranges instead of just appearing at random locations near the gate. The defending fleet will then alter their positions, etc etc. Fleets that take too long gathering to attack will be able to be scanned out, etc.
|
Thread Winner
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 22:07:00 -
[2]
How do I get unescorted space pinatas then?
|
Tolomea
Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 23:20:00 -
[3]
I like it
|
Ferreus Malukar
The X-Trading Company Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 00:14:00 -
[4]
One advantage would be that you can talk with campers who defend their alliance space /whatever about a permission.
|
Serendipity007
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 00:27:00 -
[5]
Interesting concept. How would an opposing force get into a system to hack the stargate?
To be honest, gate camping needs to be moved to the Inbound side of the gate ONLY.
Have the ship jumping through the stargate end up in some random distance and random direction away from the stargate.
However, to balance this and to allow defense of systems, any dictor bubble or deployed bubble would pull in ships warping near the stargate. Or at least increase the "pull range" of the bubbles and dictor bubbles. Also, allow bubbles to pull ships out of warp between gates. This allows defenders to camp the inbound gate to a system they are trying to protect. This also allows attackers not to have to load to a lag-filled overcrowded system at the destination.
Consider allowing dictor bubbles in lowsec. This would allow limited pirating at gates.
Highsec gatecamps? Meh, if you want to PVP, do it in lowsec or 0.0. ___________________________________________________ "I'm an engineer, not a miracle worker!" - Scotty, Star Trek: TOS
|
Tolomea
Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 03:26:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tolomea on 03/04/2007 03:26:42
Originally by: Serendipity007 Interesting concept. How would an opposing force get into a system to hack the stargate?
my understanding was that you don't need to get into the system to unlock access.
currently if you want to lock down a system you bubble all the gates so you can kill stuff as it arrives, this requires you to concentrate all your forces in that system, and for the enemy to also jump in before they can engauge. this has several effects 1: a lot of ships and fighting in one system causing a lot of lag 2: the attackers lose all options for strategic deployment ending up dispersed randomly around the gate just whenever they manage to get through the jump lag 3: the attackers suffer heavily from jump lag
with this proposal what would happen instead is when you want to lock down a system you go into the neighbouring systems and shutdown the gates going into the target system, you then need to camp each of those gates so you can keep them shutdown, then to get in the attackers need to break one or more of these camps. this counters all of the points above 1: the attackers, defenders and battles are spread cross several systems 2: the attackers can deploy units in groups, at varying ranges and directions from the gate, and coordinate arival times 3: there is no jump lag only the much lesser warp lag
Originally by: Serendipity007
To be honest, gate camping needs to be moved to the Inbound side of the gate ONLY.
Have the ship jumping through the stargate end up in some random distance and random direction away from the stargate.
I assume by random distance you mean big enough distance that your chances of landing in a bubble are negligible
This is what the op was trying to accomplish with the no bubbles near gates part, however I don't like that solution as you are still going to want to bubble the inbound side of the gate to cut down hit and run tactics, and frankly if you banned bubbles near gates they'd become useless.
Your suggestion solves that part of the problem in a much tidier and simpler fashion.
Originally by: Serendipity007
However, to balance this and to allow defense of systems, any dictor bubble or deployed bubble would pull in ships warping near the stargate. Or at least increase the "pull range" of the bubbles and dictor bubbles. Also, allow bubbles to pull ships out of warp between gates. This allows defenders to camp the inbound gate to a system they are trying to protect. This also allows attackers not to have to load to a lag-filled overcrowded system at the destination.
I don't think this is really necessary
Originally by: Serendipity007
Consider allowing dictor bubbles in lowsec. This would allow limited pirating at gates.
not a chance, lowsec already has enough problems as it is, it's generally agreed that it needs to be made safer somehow, allowing bubbles is not going to make it safer.
however I do see your point, dropping the ships out at random largish distances from the gate would make low sec piracy a lot harder, but that might be a good thing, they would then require luck and/or ceptor tacklers rather than the current 1 or 2 BS with disruptor camps.
another option is to only apply the random large distance thing to 0.0 gates, thus nothing in low sec changes, make some RP excuse along the lines of 0.0 gates being cheaper and less accurate
all in all I think we have the outlines of a very good idea
|
Tolomea
Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 03:47:00 -
[7]
Also it's not explicity stated but I assume intended that the group that locks the gate can still get thier own ships through and can choose to admit any other ships.
|
Drizit
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 07:26:00 -
[8]
Keep it limited to 0.0 or it reverses what enabling JTZ helped to achieve in opening up lowsec. If dictor bubbles and gate lockdowns can be done in lowsec, we are back to the crowded highsec problem where nobody wants to venture into lowsec for fear of gate campers.
--
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |