|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.17 14:39:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Thur Barbek
Originally by: Siena Petrucis
If stations were made destructible, most of the work planned in the devblogs to get more people into 0.0 would be undone. Who wants to move all their stuff into a 0.0 station that can be destroyed. Major assets would be stored in the closest NPC station in the neighboring region. Consequently, the big alliances would shove all the little corps out of NPC space to protect their assets.
Not necessarely... CCP can add a mechanism that will move assets to a designated by player or random high sec station, just like it's done with med clone. This way risk of losing assets is left out of the equasion.
|
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:35:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Mindnut on 17/08/2011 15:37:52 I think that a CAPITAL SYSTEM with extra bonuses would be nice to have. If an alliance claims space under sov. it should have the possibility to create a capital system which will be harder to take over by the attacker. Maybe add defences by the gates/stations. Anything to raise a chance of survival for new alliances entering 0.0 would be good.
"internal - system security"
The Capital system would be (just an example on a 0-5 scale) "5" with max bonuses possible and very hard to take over. The further the influence of an alliance spreads the lower the security level and bonuses... Lowest security systems would be very easy to take over by others but the closer to the capital system the harder the job. Adjacent systems could then be upgraded from "0" to "4" but next system after that will never be higher then "3".
As for the bonuses. Why not boost most stats on structures as well as ships? A fewer ships in a "5" sec system would stand a chance to a bigger fleet attacking them. If you look at RL ppl feel more comfortable and safe in their own neighbourhood. It all changes when you enter someone elses home area.
This way a small alliance with only 3 systems at sec "5" and 2x "4" will have an easier job protecting their space then a big alliance with a lot of "0" or "1" security systems The big guys would ofc also have their "home" space with high sec but any system beyond that would be harder to keep under sov.
I thought about this over night and to me it seems like a good idea...
An alliance would have to buy and anchor a "Capital Outpost" to create a Capital System. A capital outpost would be an extended verion of an outpost allowing:
1. fitting of turrets/launchers and ewar structures (available CPU/powergrid just like on the pos's) in the vicinity of that station as well as near stargates. 2. control of the defences from within the station. A fleet commander would be able to stay inside the station and cordinate defence operations from safety (has an overview and can switch wiew to any stagate or structure in the system). 3. primary attack setting of all defence structures...
Let's say we anchor 4 small laser turrets and 4 large laser turrets by the gate. A primary attack setting would allow to program these weapons to attack a speciffic type of ship. I.E. small turrets can be programed to attack interceptos. If there are no interceptors in the attacking fleet lasers will attack any frigate size ship. If there are none - focus on a larger ship class.
I think that this mechanism would not only add more dynamics to the game but also give the defenders an advantage they don't really have atm.
|
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.18 15:51:00 -
[3]
Additionally to my previous post...
There always has been an issue with local channel, and I know CCP isn't going to get rid of it anytime soon. Heavily populated systems whether it's in npc regions or under sov. don't really encourage ppl to mine/rat in that system. Putting aside intel channels - the longer the local list the harder it is to spot your enemy. On top of that, if that characters name starts with "Z" it has an advantage over a character starting with "A".
I think that there should be an automated system detecting ememy/neutral presence. Every player in the system should get a warning when hostile ships enter that system. Number of hostile ships should also be displayed on the screen somewhere.
Aura - Warning, hostile ship presence detected.
Annother way to solve this problem would be adding a filter to the local channel. Let it show only neutral/hostile players on the list.
I know that this would have a major effect on the current gameplay. Fast roaming gangs and soloers would deffinitely have a harder job trying to surprise anybody, but at least it would be fair to both sides as well as to "Abraham" who pops up at the top of the list as soon as he shows up in the local channel.
If you can't remove the local channel and add a D.scanner that won't be spammed then why not make the system automated?
I'm sure I'm not the first one to raise this issue and that it probably shouldn't be here in this thread, but I think it's still important.
|
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.19 16:13:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Bloodpetal
Investment Conquest - You put more assets/money into a location, it switches to you.
Population Conquest - Having more people in that system on daily average wins you that system.
Both of these systems don't make any sense to me...
Investment Conquest - Rich alliances would have a far too great advantage over the new alliances in 0.0
Population Conquest - Once again the big guy wins over the new and smaller alliance. Big guy can simply get most of his pilots to fly into your system and stay there for a few days. They kill anything that flies out of the station, do plexes, rat and log off in space.
|
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Mindnut on 19/08/2011 17:40:45 Reading throught this thread made me realize that TZ issues make any good conquest system fall appart. In RL war and conquest isn't something you can take a break from. It's a 24/7 thing.
I was just thinking, what if we were forced to form alliances that consist of people from different timezones. Would that be sooo bad?
When one corp sleeps the other is on guard. Key systems wouldn't become overcrouded so easily.
To me a perfect conquest system is the one closest to RL.
1. Sov. is gained when an outpost is anchored - lost when it's destroyed. Additionaly - when an outpost is destroyed all assets are exported and not lost (lowering risk should bring more people out to 0.0). Losing assets that are in space is more then enough (risk vs. reward)
2. Allow anchoring of ONE Capital outpost (with great bonuses) per Alliance and multiple outposts in general. We'd be able to create one unique system that is far different from any other system under sov. - a HOME. Allow to anchor defences on stagates and outposts. Each alliance should be able to create a heavily defended/fortified system that would give then an advantage when protecting and increase survival. - cynojammers - defences - ewar structures - multiple JB's This would be a very big help to small/new alliances. The less space you have the easier it would be to protect it.
3. Key systems should be upgraded to give bonuses to ratting/mining/PVP. As you move away from the Capital system the lower the bonuses. Big alliances would use the resources faster and that would give them the incentive to expand. Expanding would mean having lower bonuses or no bonuses at all when one expands far out, but that's ok if you have numbers.
This would simply force people to create alliances that are formed with corps from different TZs, but it would also allow to use a conquest system that is dynamic and as close to RL as possible.
|
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.20 18:23:00 -
[6]
Annother thought...
To help you visualize this simply undock from station, hold ALT, click on the station and picture this...
You've just assumed control of the outpost. The UI is no different from the ship UI. You have a carrier-like drone bay and a bunch of fighters at your disposal. You have great stats further modified by the sev. lvl of the system. You can enter the fitting screen and access mods in your corp hangar.
You have 24 fitting slots available but... All 24 slots act as HIGH SLOTS with additional rules:
1. In LOW slots you can only fit medum-size modules. - Medium turrets, heavy launchers - Medum: Nosferatu/Neutralizer/Remote Armor Repper/Shield Transporter/Energy Transfer
2. In MEDIUM slots you can only fit large-size modules. - Large turrets, cruise/siege launchers - Heavy/Large: Nosferatu/Neutralizer/Remote Armor Repper/Shield Transporter/Energy Transfer
3. In HIGH slots you can only fit Capitas-size modules - Capital turrets, Citadel launchers, DDD - Capital: Remote Armor Repper/Shield Transporter/Energy Transfer
There is a range of outposts to choose from:
- Outpost - More powerfull then a Titan - Capital outpost - 5x as powerful as the regular outpost. Has built-in facilities. Allowed one per alliance. - Mobile (nomadic) outpost - has a built-in jumpdrive
And if you need to take a dump, relinquish control and don't worry cause these things have best AI available in New Eden =)
The reason behind this idea is that "if" we could anchor defences by the station it wouldn't exactly solve the "yawn-we're-shooting structures-again" problem. Anchorable defences can be destroyed and you end up spending hours trying to pop a defenceless outpost or in the current situation the facilities.
A fitted outpost would keep fighting the whole time it's being assulted. It could provide logistics to the defending team and actively take part in the fight whether it's controled by a player or the AI.
|
Mindnut
|
Posted - 2011.08.20 18:29:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lolion Reglo Continuation from my previous post 86
Create A Capital System A home base, operations center, the mother land, cradle of civilization... what ever you want to call it. This will have the ability to be upgraded to a deffensive level V. what does this mean? i have no clue, but i dont think this should base on how much a system can get improved in terms of industry or ratting. Deffensivly it should be the highest cause its your capital. But as you go out further from your capital the deffensive structures that can be created and improvements made drop because the total deffensive level drop by distance. I.E. imedatly surounding the capital its a IV rating... 2 jumps out is a 3 rating, 3 jumps a 2, 4 jumps a 1 and 5 jumps or more outside of a capital is a 0, meaning no deffensive improvements can be made.
Allow the repositioning of a Capital System. This is IMPERATIVE to allow changes in control in space. Moving the capital should take time... say a 24 hour cooldown before the title can be removed and a week before systems start to naturally lose their deffensive level ratings. Of course if you establish another capital before then than any system still within the proper range keeps its original rating or is dropped according to its new distance from the capital.
Possibly denote deffensive rating based upon Light Years than Jumps. This enables space to be held basid upon how far LY wise you are away and makes for a more dynamic rating.
Scale Defensive structures via Level.
Level I Deffensive Bunkers
Level II Gate Turets Station Turets
Level III Cyno Jammers
Level IV Anti Cloaking devices 25% bonus to defneders Level V 35% Bonus to defenders
These can be changed via what is balanceable but its a starting point.
That's pretty much what I had in mind =) Moving the Capital outpost would deffinitely be important since expanding sov. may require different distriditinon of key systems.
|
|
|
|