Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 08:29:00 -
[1]
3 years ago when I started playing Eve, I read on a forum topic on Defence of 0.0 space. Basically, the proposal was something about the ability of 0.0 alliance to defend their territory when the majority of players are offline. Clear at the time I knew very little about it, but I am now after several years of playing much better informed on this subject and I came to the conclusion that the alliances should have the ability to defend certain key territories and objects when most players are not present. So I developed a proposal that goes in that direction, and should make the game better and more interesting. The idea is based on the fact that when a player is offline he should be able to set up a ship in the system to protect or defend a specific area or object of interes. This is not meant as a replacement for PVP or some sort of AFK PVP but only as a addition and with a lots of restrictions. Here are some basic rules which should be valid in this case:
1. You can set only one ship for each character that you have in the alliance. 2. You can set only ordinary ships, no faction, tech 2, tech 3 or capitals ships, and the same rule applies to equipment, weapons and ammunition, which you will use to equip your vessel. 3. Only allowed ships are: frigates, destroyers, cruisers, battlecruisers and battleship. 4. In order for anyone to set any vessel in the system your alliance must have a maximum level of sovereignty and the station or outpost. 5. The ship can only be deployed in space when your character go offline, as soon as he comes online your ship immediately returns to the station. 6. The ship used in this way can not stay in space longer than 24 hours ( maybe even longer than 12 hours ) and for any new launch you have to pay. 7. If your ship destroyed in battle it will be counted as a kill, similar rule applies to POS warfare when you destroy the control tower or POS module. 8. All ships used in this way are without any insurance, if you lose it, the loss is complete without compensation. 9. In order to launch any ship you must logg off in that sistem, no afk launch or form high sec. or any other place. - Table prices for each launch should be roughly this:
- for frigate 20 - 50 k - for destroyer 50 - 100 k - for cruiser 100 - 250 k - for battlecruiser 250 - 500 k - for battleship 500 k - 1 mil - Skills required for equipping and launching of any vessel should be like this: Necessary skills is lidership level 5 for all. Then for each type of ship you need a special skill such as: - if you want to use kestrel you need caldari frigate level 5 - if you want to use caracal you need caldari cruiser level 5 - if you want to use drake you need caldari cruiser level 5 and battlecruiser level 5 - and so on... - Similar rule should apply for weapons and equipment. - Once you've deployed ship in space he begins to act according to pre-determined mode. It can be a mode where he guard gate, or POS station and attack any neutral or hostile ship, or he can join the defensive fleet that patrols in the system at a predetermined route between POS, belts, station, Gates and others objects in the system. - If any vessel begins to receive structural damage or runs out of ammunition he will try to go back to the station. - Equipping of ships can be made only by a predetermined configuration, which means you have only a few configurations for each type of ships. Configurations should be one for each fitting: - long range fight - short range fight - electronic warfare - speed - and so on... - However, without any kind of logistics, no sheald or armor repair. - The amount of damage that would be inflicted would be larger than the damage that may otherwise applied by NPC ships, but still less than the damage that might otherwise applied by pvp fleet of similar size. If this proposal would be implemented could make the game more interesting. It would allow alliances to have some form of protection at a time when most of their players do not play, and roming gangs that flying around would have something to shoot when they entering in there main sistem. Obviously would not provide protection for all of their territory, no alliance can not maintain the maximum level of sovereignty throughout its territory or have numbers of active players needed to implement this in bigger part of there space, but few may still be protected. This type of protection potential for a longer period would not be cheap. Well-organized fleet with logistic support should not have any problems with this type of defense.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 08:35:00 -
[2]
I like it, only for the fact it would provide lulz when you go and farm these ships.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar Also, if your bookmarks are too far out, they can and will ban you for it.
Originally by: Torothanax Low population in w systems makes afk cloaking unattractive.
|
Kampfsani
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.05.20 09:40:00 -
[3]
hmm interesting idea.
The first thing that come to my mind are Toon's, many of us got a second account or more, so lets take a guy that have 5 accounts, he assign 4 of his toons to him and he got a lot of fire power. This can be a problem.
so what if that the FC (Fleet Commander) must have at last the skill FC at lvl 4 as a minimum requirement to command this kind of Fleet's.
Second problem, in the last yeah Station's prop left and right in 0.0 Regions, and i think you want your idea for a last change defense for the Ally in they "downtime". so the Ally have to but a sovereignty upgrade into the System they want to defend it, maybe put a limit how many the ally/corp can anchor this kind of upgrades to a Region.
but overall a very good idea *thumps up*
|
Ivona Frios
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 10:03:00 -
[4]
Even if CCP accept this it will pass at least two years before we can see this on tranquility. |
GavinCapacitor
|
Posted - 2011.05.23 14:21:00 -
[5]
This is the worst idea I have heard in quite awhile.
In addition to the fact that its just bad, with all the restrictions you have (besides the fact that the defenders are controlled by an AI) they would just die.. no logistics, no t2, no anything.
Except free kill mails for the attackers, that is.
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.05.24 05:34:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Simeon Whiteheaven on 24/05/2011 05:35:03
Originally by: GavinCapacitor This is the worst idea I have heard in quite awhile.
In addition to the fact that its just bad, with all the restrictions you have (besides the fact that the defenders are controlled by an AI) they would just die.. no logistics, no t2, no anything.
Except free kill mails for the attackers, that is.
Part of the main ideas is that roaming gangs have a chance to make some kills outside of the time zone of players who live in that system. Such a defense should slow down organized attack on the POS or sovereignty in that system, but it should not stop the attack. The goal is not to create impregnable fortress in the system.
|
Aston Martin DB5
|
Posted - 2011.05.24 06:33:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Aston Martin DB5 on 24/05/2011 06:33:13
Quote: So I developed a proposal that goes in this direction, and should make the game better and more interesting: The idea is based on a player being offline
There we go.... sounds like a blast.
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.05.24 09:57:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Simeon Whiteheaven on 24/05/2011 10:01:53
Originally by: Aston Martin DB5 Edited by: Aston Martin DB5 on 24/05/2011 06:33:13
Quote: So I developed a proposal that goes in this direction, and should make the game better and more interesting: The idea is based on a player being offline
There we go.... sounds like a blast.
I do not mind when people criticize a proposal that I made,everyone is entitled to their opinion, whatever it was. But when you deliberately twist words and deleted parts of a sentence in order to show something that is not there I feel compelled to react. I originally wrote this:
So I developed a proposal that goes in that direction, and should make the game better and more interesting. The idea is based on the fact that when a player is offline he should be able to set up a ship in the system to protect or defend a specific area or object of interes. This is not meant as a replacement for PVP or some sort of AFK PVP but only as a addition and with a lots of restrictions.
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 17:22:00 -
[9]
I think I could put this post in the Assembly Hall to see what CSM thinks about him.
|
Taz911
Northern Watch
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 21:59:00 -
[10]
One thing comes to mind "You Snooze You LOSE!"
|
|
EnderCapitalG
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.06.02 22:11:00 -
[11]
No.
|
Cyn0 A17
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 03:39:00 -
[12]
There isnt much sub caps can do against a well put together super cap fleet (even an alpha fleet doesnt have enough to alpha a super though they can get dreads and regular carriers). How to defend 0.0 is simpile have alot more acitve super caps than your foe. If they send subcaps just dd everything till they leave. commandships and fc 1st then shinny stuff (probly all that will be done with your titans in the 1st volley) then logi so the super carriers can do more with the bombers (it only matters if they got a ****ton of logi) then dps and ecm last for they cant jam you.
TLDR:Only the supers matter everything else is just to lag the system to **** (like what you are suggesting) so if something like a counter drop happens you can log off before taking serious damage.
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.06.07 10:57:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Simeon Whiteheaven on 07/06/2011 10:57:56
Originally by: Cyn0 A17 There isnt much sub caps can do against a well put together super cap fleet (even an alpha fleet doesnt have enough to alpha a super though they can get dreads and regular carriers). How to defend 0.0 is simpile have alot more acitve super caps than your foe. If they send subcaps just dd everything till they leave. commandships and fc 1st then shinny stuff (probly all that will be done with your titans in the 1st volley) then logi so the super carriers can do more with the bombers (it only matters if they got a ****ton of logi) then dps and ecm last for they cant jam you.
TLDR:Only the supers matter everything else is just to lag the system to **** (like what you are suggesting) so if something like a counter drop happens you can log off before taking serious damage.
If you take little better a look at the proposal that I made, you will see that I put one of the conditions is the max level of sovereignty in the system. Each system with a max level of sovereignty should have CYNO jammer, which then removes any enemy capital fleet for as long that cyno jammer is active. The only way that capital fleet can enter in that system is that you must destroy cyno jammer, and the only way to that is to deploy sub-capital fleet which is going to do that.
|
Ivona Frios
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 05:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kampfsani hmm interesting idea.
The first thing that come to my mind are Toon's, many of us got a second account or more, so lets take a guy that have 5 accounts, he assign 4 of his toons to him and he got a lot of fire power. This can be a problem.
so what if that the FC (Fleet Commander) must have at last the skill FC at lvl 4 as a minimum requirement to command this kind of Fleet's.
Second problem, in the last yeah Station's prop left and right in 0.0 Regions, and i think you want your idea for a last change defense for the Ally in they "downtime". so the Ally have to but a sovereignty upgrade into the System they want to defend it, maybe put a limit how many the ally/corp can anchor this kind of upgrades to a Region.
but overall a very good idea *thumps up*
It's not a bad suggestion, if allianes want to have a defense fleet they should improve the system by placing some sort of command center or Coordination Centre or some kind of improvement whit similar names.
|
Destoya
SniggWaffe FREE KARTTOON NOW
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 06:50:00 -
[15]
Quote: ...but only as a addition and with a lots of restrictions.
There's where this idea starts to go bad, adding some weird, superfluous mechanics with a lot of restrictions placed on it isn't a good idea, especially in a MMO that prides itself on doing whatever you like. This just doesn't seem to fill a role that is really missing, and other than giving further incentive to massive alliances with massive member/alt counts doesn't add anything to the game other than glorified NPCs to shoot
|
Swynet
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 09:51:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Swynet on 15/06/2011 09:52:16 A much better solution is to recruit and have friendly relations between different time zones corporations?
Player decisions must have an impact so:
If you decide to play exclusively with people talking and writing academic english (for example heh) living in london you have to assume the drawbacks of your choices and deal with.
Terribad idea.
|
Christopher AET
Segmentum Solar Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 10:03:00 -
[17]
This reminds me of POS guns which when not controlled by a player are woefully ineffective against anything other than single unfortunate ships. Any halfway decent roaming gang could steamroll these NPC ships. No self respecting sov entity would deploy them. besides there is already a chance for a sov entity to defend their space. It's called reinforcement timers. Rarely do the big fights happen on the first strike. On timer expiry both sides know when to fight and can prepare thus. So in effect you are solving a problem that does not exist.
|
Suiginryou Hitaiga
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.15 10:12:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Suiginryou Hitaiga on 15/06/2011 10:13:07 World of warcraft is that way -------------->
(jeez, did I really say that? Damn. Me, of all the people...) ___ Remove insurance payouts for concord kills Make wardecs expensive and declinable Make SS go -1.0 per offense Remove L4 agents from hisec Allow non-corp hisec POS and moon mining |
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 12:41:00 -
[19]
I read the last few of comments on this topic and I have the impression that half the people either did not read the whole topic what I wrote or did not take even a minute of time to at least reflect on what they read. Someone wrote that: "No self respecting alliances would use this", well how many of these alliances exist, those in which the number of players who prefer PvP is bigger than those who ratting or mining and only occasionally fight in pvp when their living space is threatened, or when they feel that their living space is not longer big enough and then decide to conquer a neighboring constellation or neighboring region depending on the size of their ambitions, and the number of people willing to participate in such an enterprise. But now begin to getting off the subjects, the point is that most alliances that live in 0.0 space, have players who may fighting in pvp, but they a not really pvp oriented, but only participate when needed. This proposal would have given them the opportunity to defend one to two key systems and of course, could prove to be expensive, but would at the same time prove to be very interesting because it could provide a bigger number of targets to shoot. There is a reason why I have proposed such restrictions, and that is that this kind of defense would not be available anywhere and anyone. Around 5-10% of the system in 0.0 space (somewhere between 50 to 100 of the system, maybe 150) could be defended in this way, which means that 90-95% should remain the same.
|
0Lona 0ltor
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:39:00 -
[20]
As if EVE's defense were not overpowered already. A pos gets 24hrs ffs, we don't need to make it harder to attack but easier.
|
|
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 19:33:00 -
[21]
Originally by: 0Lona 0ltor As if EVE's defense were not overpowered already. A pos gets 24hrs ffs, we don't need to make it harder to attack but easier.
I never said that we should make attack on the POS harder. This should help you to defend only a few key system when most of people are offline.
|
Medidranda Livoga
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:19:00 -
[22]
Sov based on 23h/weekly/monthly activity would be the best for this instead of more convoluted buggy mechanisms.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:22:00 -
[23]
I have to go -1 on this.
Simply because of the fact that when you attack is part of the strategy.
In a nut shell, if I wanted to attack another military base, would I do it while everyone is there and awake, or would I wait till a reasonable time in which they were sleeping or something along that lines?
Strategy is the secret recipe in any battle.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2011.07.06 23:30:00 -
[24]
this idea is that ridiculously far away from the eve gameplay I dont know what to reply to that.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |