Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 21:58:00 -
[31]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt An onlining STOP may not be able to be offlined, however you can just blow it up and put your own STOP.
It was my impression that a STOP should be helpful for the attacker. But under the current mechanics it is a pretty big help for the defender.
Especially if the attacker first needs to blow up the STOPs.
But as I said, maybe I misunderstand something fundamental here.
|
Agent Known
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 22:20:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: An Anarchyyt An onlining STOP may not be able to be offlined, however you can just blow it up and put your own STOP.
It was my impression that a STOP should be helpful for the attacker. But under the current mechanics it is a pretty big help for the defender.
Especially if the attacker first needs to blow up the STOPs.
But as I said, maybe I misunderstand something fundamental here.
If the defenders anchor a STOP, an attacker can just online it and take it over. The defenders CANNOT online the STOP without making the system vulnerable, which makes the whole "using STOPs as a defense buffer" issue a moot point. On another note, I also have an annoying sig.
inaftertimeflux |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 22:33:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Agent Known If the defenders anchor a STOP, an attacker can just online it and take it over. The defenders CANNOT online the STOP without making the system vulnerable, which makes the whole "using STOPs as a defense buffer" issue a moot point.
But didn't you read my previous post?
The defender anchors AND onlines the STOP. And when the STOP comes online, he offlines it for a second and onlines it again - which will take 6 hours. So the system is vulerable for one second, but that's it (if offlining is not available, he just shoots the STOP down and replaces it with a new one any time he wants).
And the only way to break this is if attacker shoots down ALL the STOPs before he can set up his own STOPs. This way the STOP is acting as a first defence line for the defender instead of acting as a first line for the attacker.
The more gates are in the system, the worse it becomes for the attacker. Not only does he need to defend his own STOPs, but first he needs to kill all enemy STOPs.
I am not sure if that is exactly how the system should work. Therefore I am pointing this out - after all, this is the feedback forum :)
|
Silver Tongues
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 22:39:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Agent Known If the defenders anchor a STOP, an attacker can just online it and take it over. The defenders CANNOT online the STOP without making the system vulnerable, which makes the whole "using STOPs as a defense buffer" issue a moot point.
But didn't you read my previous post?
The defender anchors AND onlines the STOP. And when the STOP comes online, he offlines it for a second and onlines it again - which will take 6 hours. So the system is vulerable for one second, but that's it (if offlining is not available, he just shoots the STOP down and replaces it with a new one any time he wants).
And the only way to break this is if attacker shoots down ALL the STOPs before he can set up his own STOPs. This way the STOP is acting as a first defence line for the defender instead of acting as a first line for the attacker.
The more gates are in the system, the worse it becomes for the attacker. Not only does he need to defend his own STOPs, but first he needs to kill all enemy STOPs.
I am not sure if that is exactly how the system should work. Therefore I am pointing this out - after all, this is the feedback forum :)
What about adding a 48 hour window where the STOPs can't be offlined? This would require the defending alliance to be shooting down and replacing the stop's every 6 hours on the hour for the rest of eternity to prevent their system from becoming vulnerable.
|
Agent Known
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 22:47:00 -
[35]
There's also the missing "cost" for either making the STOPs or buying them from seeded NPC stations. If the cost is high enough, then people won't be spamming STOPs to defend their space.
Also, you can actually anchor and online more than one STOP per gate in a given system (afaik, I'll have to test again to be sure), so the defenders will be just digging their own graves if they put up their own. On another note, I also have an annoying sig.
inaftertimeflux |
nianra
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 23:23:00 -
[36]
Will the corp that set ups the "Stop" have a delay to put it online, otherwise it will become a "click as fast as you can" contest to put the stop online wich doesn't really seems like being a very interesting way of fighting :)
like 14 ratters trying to steal the loot from a shadow serpentis... |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 23:26:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Agent Known If the defenders anchor a STOP, an attacker can just online it and take it over. The defenders CANNOT online the STOP without making the system vulnerable, which makes the whole "using STOPs as a defense buffer" issue a moot point.
But didn't you read my previous post?
The defender anchors AND onlines the STOP. And when the STOP comes online, he offlines it for a second and onlines it again - which will take 6 hours. So the system is vulerable for one second, but that's it (if offlining is not available, he just shoots the STOP down and replaces it with a new one any time he wants).
And the only way to break this is if attacker shoots down ALL the STOPs before he can set up his own STOPs. This way the STOP is acting as a first defence line for the defender instead of acting as a first line for the attacker.
The more gates are in the system, the worse it becomes for the attacker. Not only does he need to defend his own STOPs, but first he needs to kill all enemy STOPs.
I am not sure if that is exactly how the system should work. Therefore I am pointing this out - after all, this is the feedback forum :)
In reality, this is something that happens on paper but is extremely unlikely to happen in game. And as said before, it is not hard to stop.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 23:51:00 -
[38]
So, if you see an enemy come in and start anchoring a STOP, you got 5 minute to get a cov-ops, and get close enough to make it yours by doing the onlining. Then, after it's online, you can just offline it again.. hrhr.
The alternative is the attacker gets 'ownership' by doing the onlining, and the STOP has to be removed by guns. Anyway, fun times ahead.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 00:59:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Gnulpie Edited by: Gnulpie on 10/11/2009 21:19:57
Originally by: CCP Sisyphus
A STOP (or Blockade unit as they are now called) is meant to be used for one purpose only - to make a system vulnerable.
To that end we already had a feature - an online STOP will always count towards making a system vulnerable - ie, if the sovereign holding corp onlined enough STOPs then the system becomes vulnerable to being attacked.
Since this defensive buffer came to light - we've added another step (which you will seee on sisi tomorrow): An anchored STOP can be onlined by ANYONE (even if they are in a differen corp/alliance).
So anchoring a bunch of STOPs at your gate is just giving the enemy a free ride into taking your system.
I am not sure if I understand everything, but I will try my best. (can't test it currently, meh )
Assume the following scenario:
A defending ally in a system. They have anchored STOPS on all gates. The also online all STOPS except the last one which is necessary to break immunity.
Now ...
As soon as someone onlines the last missing STOP, the defending ally will just offline one of their own other STOP's (and onlining them directly again), thus buying 6 hours. Then after 2 hours, they offline the next STOP (and again online it immediately again so that they still have the ownership), buying in total 8 hours time. And so on. Giving enough gates (at least 4), they can always cycle through the STOPs so that NEVER all STOPs can be online at the same time.
Therefore I don't see that others being able to online a STOP will help against defensive STOPs.
Edit: Changing mechanics so that offlining STOPSs doesn't work wouldn't help. The defending ally then only need to shoot their own STOPs to 'offline' them. The whole 'cyling through STOPs' tactic would still work and make a system immune.
This guy is correct all you have done is complicate things even more. The easier thing to do is is just allow more then one stop on the gate and have no effect on system until they are onlined.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 01:06:00 -
[40]
I would ask if you allowed more then on stop on a gate you make them anchor them with outside of 20 k of each gate OR make them so they dont decloak or bounce people. i could just imagine a gate spammed with stops so they lag the **** out of the gate or make it impossible warp or cloak LOL
|
|
Mr Opinions
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 03:28:00 -
[41]
If this change is kept then STOPs better cost at least 100 million ISK each. While you're at it, give them wrecks that yield T2 salvage.
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 03:40:00 -
[42]
Why not make anchored = online, like bubbles? OHGODS BELOW THIS LINE IS MY SIG !!!! SRSLY! Blane Xero > Lance is at -0.9 sec status with a 1 million bounty. Lance is also amarrian. Thats 3 evil points |
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 04:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Lance Fighter Why not make anchored = online, like bubbles?
I like this
|
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 08:10:00 -
[44]
Edited by: RedClaws on 11/11/2009 08:11:20 Edited by: RedClaws on 11/11/2009 08:10:25
Originally by: Lance Fighter Why not make anchored = online, like bubbles?
The man has a point.
But yes I can see "allied" alliances dropping a single STOP and onlining it. Then when a hostile force drops STOPs and onlines them the "allied" alliance offlines theirs and reonlines it , giving the defenders another 6 hours, repeat until attackers shoot the STOP or manages to online it for themselves durign the 1 second it is back to anchored status(CLICKFEST!!!).
Unless ofcourse you can't offline a STOP.... If once it's online, it's online until destroyed... theres no reason to put "friendly" STOPs anywhere since you'll just be helping the attackers(who can online an anchored STOP)
|
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 08:37:00 -
[45]
Originally by: RedClaws
Originally by: Lance Fighter Why not make anchored = online, like bubbles?
If once it's online, it's online until destroyed...
Both of these are are valid solutions, however the anchored = online one is probably the most user-friendly, in the sense that if you do have an "oops" moment outside of a serious invasion, you can offline it later and get your STOP back. You still won't be tossing these into space if there are hostile invaders around.
Otherwise, you have just wasted some ISK both in the STOP itself, time, and ammo to shoot it down.
--Krum --Krum |
Kyusoath Orillian
Broski Enterprises No Fun Allowed
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 21:02:00 -
[46]
why not scrap this idea completely and make this 'blockade' module actually blockade the gate, ie; offlining it, meaning no one can use it. then have modules and skills built around hacking the other end to open the gate.
true attackers will have a hard time getting into a system to actually attack it but, say you are in some dead end system (1 gate) and you offline the gate this means you can't get out , at the same time have it so cynojamming means you can't jump from a system either(jump bridges also) effectively meaning you are stuck in there and if the enemy wants to attack , the defenders know they are coming and can organise around the gate to repel the invaders.
i mean this is your space right? you are even paying for it. why can't you decide if your gates work or not ?
also the removal of local is key to this idea, as then you can never really be sure that when you locked that gate , you didn't just lock your self in with the enemy.
if covert cynos work in a cyno jammed system this could be a nightmare for the defenders, who find small covops fleets raiding them when they think they are safe.
also, attackers can use them the same way, blockading the other end of the gate meaning you can't get out of your cosy 'safe' system, severely hurting logistical operations.(can't get needed supplies, fuel etc)
hacking the gate should be simple and take long enough that they have to stand still for a while , and send an alert 30 seconds after it was hacked, meaning the price you pay for closing the gate is a high one and bad guys can just sneak in during that 30second window, unless of course you actively get decent intel about movements in your space(like always) and defend the gate.
make these blockade modules expensive enough and also fragile enough, that people don't just try and drop them everywhere. and move the 'flag' within pos shields. this means you make the system open to attack by downing the single controlling pos.
this gives black ops a decent role in this type of warfare, gives a false sense of security to those that choose to close themselves off, and because hacking the gate open is easy, and just requires someone to fit a single module, roaming gangs can still get in, it just means that the defenders get a warning that the gate is hacked.
to clarify,
- defenders blockade their gate. - enemy has to hack gate to get access. - hacking gate grants access for 30 seconds - defenders are warned about intruders to their system - small gang/big fleet enters -attackers hide in shadows, picking off defenders until they finally do something about it.
ok its not that great an idea, but the point is that it always seemed stupid that if you own this space and you are even paying for that privilege, you can't decide to just close your gates ?
its like owning a massive castle with thick walls defences etc, and not bothering to close the gates, just let your enemies walk into it.
i'd just like to see ccp think out of the box for once and drop this mentality that the only way to get from one system to another is using gates, at least let small ships jump thru covert cynos, frig gang goes in first, allowing the big boys to come in or something. it might even give AFs a reason to exist.
i know about ccp saying they never want players to be able to control gates, be able to do even simple things like deploy gate guns(thanks ccp, its ok when npcs do it tho? )
but don't listen to me, i think that we should get rid of hisec and losec and just let it be a free for all, forcing people to work together or just get shot everytime you undock. consequences. just look at the test server, people don't just kill eachother as the consequences would be a banning. remove hisec and its the same, the consequence of being an ass to everyone means you get popped. sure still have a few select pockets of 'hisec' with concord that act as hubs( at a heavy tax cost)
man i shouldn't post when stoned.
TRU BRO. Unofficial .BRO. raep team captain.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 23:44:00 -
[47]
That is the stupidest post I have ever read.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Orb Lati
Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 01:24:00 -
[48]
If your worried about the exploit surely the simplest solution is disregard who owns each Blockade unit and just say 51% gates with Onlined Stops = FLAG now vulnerable regardless of owner ship.
Now your only problem in the unanchored/offlineing/whatever mechanic being instant. change it to 5 minutes. This will mean that if a defender chooses to online some blockades around other gates with the purpose of off lining them later to disrupt "capture the flag" the attacking side at least has a chance to set up a defense around the offlining unit and claim ownership by onlining it themselves.
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 10:19:00 -
[49]
The latest iteration discourages it by making all STOP's regardless of affiliation count towards vulnerability.
An extra step should be taken though: Let the online sequence start automatically once anchored. It is already so short as to be essentially non-existent and would once and for all kill off any notion people might have regarding buffer tanking their sovereignty.
|
|
CCP Sisyphus
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 10:49:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Orb Lati If your worried about the exploit surely the simplest solution is disregard who owns each Blockade unit and just say 51% gates with Onlined Stops = FLAG now vulnerable regardless of owner ship.
That is how it is already - it has been that way ever since we released the disruption beacons/STOP/Blockade unit a few months ago on sisi.
|
|
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 11:02:00 -
[51]
so defenders take a risk if they have 49% of system with stops as defensive measure and someone comes along with another stop then theres fun to be had Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 16:52:00 -
[52]
Originally by: HeliosGal so defenders take a risk if they have 49% of system with stops as defensive measure and someone comes along with another stop then theres fun to be had
Right until the offline one of them in their alt alliance/corp and then you have to try again. Yes this method will never work because of the meta-gaming aspect is presents itself but you can try to justify it any way you like.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 07:36:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Right until the offline one of them in their alt alliance/corp and then you have to try again.
Which will only be a few minutes to warp to the now-offline STOP and start onlining? At which point the defending alliance cannot offline it, since it's not theirs anymore.
[Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2009.11.16 19:12:00 -
[54]
I havnt had a chance to test on SISI. Any more changes to this mess up.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 14:33:00 -
[55]
Well after the 49-U incident I thought I bring this back up to the top. Please if you reply after this post, please realize I made this post during the testing pre domin. Also please read every post and see alot of the SBU be used to defend was discovered but never addressed.
Black
|
MAX MEXX
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 23:38:00 -
[56]
The problem here is not just onlining the SBU's But that the ovner then can offline them at any time before the IHub\station is out of RF.
This wil make the station\ihub 100% safe, and wil give the defenders more then 3 hours to repp upp the station\Ihub. Thoes making it completly imposible to take a system now.
|
NotFred
|
Posted - 2010.01.21 01:26:00 -
[57]
Found this thread after I made one myself outlining how I think the issue could be resolved.
As has been said above, 'stealing' ownership by being the one to hit the online button does not help much in the 49- type situation.
However, I believe this would:
Tl;dr: Remove the ability to offline SBUs, but offline them automatically if the system loses sov.
|
kveldulfson
The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 13:36:00 -
[58]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Agent Known If the defenders anchor a STOP, an attacker can just online it and take it over. The defenders CANNOT online the STOP without making the system vulnerable, which makes the whole "using STOPs as a defense buffer" issue a moot point.
But didn't you read my previous post?
The defender anchors AND onlines the STOP. And when the STOP comes online, he offlines it for a second and onlines it again - which will take 6 hours. So the system is vulerable for one second, but that's it (if offlining is not available, he just shoots the STOP down and replaces it with a new one any time he wants).
And the only way to break this is if attacker shoots down ALL the STOPs before he can set up his own STOPs. This way the STOP is acting as a first defence line for the defender instead of acting as a first line for the attacker.
The more gates are in the system, the worse it becomes for the attacker. Not only does he need to defend his own STOPs, but first he needs to kill all enemy STOPs.
I am not sure if that is exactly how the system should work. Therefore I am pointing this out - after all, this is the feedback forum :)
In reality, this is something that happens on paper but is extremely unlikely to happen in game. And as said before, it is not hard to stop.
Funny that the goons are doing exactly in 49-U what you say would only be done on paper. Sov mechanics are broken and in need of a rethink anyone?
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 14:34:00 -
[59]
Originally by: kveldulfson
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Agent Known If the defenders anchor a STOP, an attacker can just online it and take it over. The defenders CANNOT online the STOP without making the system vulnerable, which makes the whole "using STOPs as a defense buffer" issue a moot point.
But didn't you read my previous post?
The defender anchors AND onlines the STOP. And when the STOP comes online, he offlines it for a second and onlines it again - which will take 6 hours. So the system is vulerable for one second, but that's it (if offlining is not available, he just shoots the STOP down and replaces it with a new one any time he wants).
And the only way to break this is if attacker shoots down ALL the STOPs before he can set up his own STOPs. This way the STOP is acting as a first defence line for the defender instead of acting as a first line for the attacker.
The more gates are in the system, the worse it becomes for the attacker. Not only does he need to defend his own STOPs, but first he needs to kill all enemy STOPs.
I am not sure if that is exactly how the system should work. Therefore I am pointing this out - after all, this is the feedback forum :)
In reality, this is something that happens on paper but is extremely unlikely to happen in game. And as said before, it is not hard to stop.
Funny that the goons are doing exactly in 49-U what you say would only be done on paper. Sov mechanics are broken and in need of a rethink anyone?
That is what I found funny myself. Iam not say it is a exploit just pointing out the fact that this was discussed and no one real cared and they said it woul dnever happen. I like the point made and would agree that whena SBU comes online it can not be shut off. This would make it impossible for defenders to use them
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2010.01.22 16:10:00 -
[60]
Except our system was still vulnerable. This is no different from reinforcing your own pos
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |