| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sevarus James
   |
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:36:00 -
[1]
After reading and reading and.......you guessed it, more reading, I had an idear. ;)
Rather than drastic 'mechanics' changes which are continually and hotly debated, why not think of another solution to at least a part of the current problems in low/no sec space.
Now granted this may get bounced down to the ol' idea lab, but "general" is where the great debate over instas/gates and such have been going on, so here goes:
When I served in the US Navy aboard the USS Enterprise, we operated in a rich EW arena. (This was the cold war era, so the games got pretty...real at times.)
Now the USS Enterprise at the time was the largest combat ship in the world, and is one helluva big target...but we had a nifty trick up our sleeves for enemy combatants. Utilizing EW we could effectively 'mask' the ship to present a smaller target to potential enemy detection systems. Not only that but we could make one of the picket ships appear to be..the carrier.
Now, in-game along these lines: Why not introduce an EW skill which allows 'TARGET REDIRECTION'.
Example: 3 haulers (full of ark) heading toward a gate are accompanied by escorts. Currently regardless of numbers, with or without instas, the haulers get splattered. Even WITH instas, these protection routines would work on 'exit' gate, as the turn to align time for haulers is...er...slow.
With a redirection skill, the EW pilots could redirect the targeting AWAY from the hauler to other combatants. (This could also be countered with ECCM gear). Now, this redirection would only move the targeting off the haulers to themselves, or at higher skill ranking to another friendly specifically tanked out for the occasion. It would also increase the tactics employable by BOTH sides of the equation, introducing a new twist and another reason to fly the EW ships.
One result (with larger numbers) would be a running fight down a "gate corridor" protecting the ships that need protecting, which at the moment can't be. -regardless of outcome, that type of fight would be more strategic/tactical than current camping practices.
It seems to me that this would then allow alliance convoys and corporate operations to at least have a chance of moving the goods through chokepoints. It would also give the pirates more of an adventure than just stare bleakly at a gate for hours on end. It would require teamwork, timing, skill, but it could eliminate some of the arguments about changing game mechanics in a drastic way.
Anyway, this isn't posted as flame-bait, but just a player offering an idea.
 |
Jakk Graiseach
|
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:50:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Jakk Graiseach on 09/04/2005 00:03:46
{EDIT- Yes I read it}
Post it on the IDEAS forum then...
(Along with the other 86 ideas about instas)
--
** All accounts cancelled - have fun guys ** |
Sevarus James
|
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:52:00 -
[3]
ur...it was in regard to the subject, not about changing them...did you even read past the subject title? 
|
Draaven
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:40:00 -
[4]
I think this is a great idea. It would definitely change the dynamics of the game, and not just for haulers. I could think of a few dirty tricks to use with this kind of technology in fleet battles...
|
Sevarus James
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:48:00 -
[5]
Just another thought...but this type of skill would give a MERC CORP the ability to actually do something other than kill. They could take on contracts to actually protect something/someone/etc. I know Seleene felt slighted in the dev chat (unintentionally by them I think), but something like this would add a new facet without altering gate mechanics or instas.
|
Shidhe
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 11:27:00 -
[6]
Interesting...
I think that the Devs should take note here - it may form part of a workable solution - using skills rather than mindless ganking.
It is good to see some serious discussion on how to make piracy work rather than the usual whining on both sides...
As it is, gate ganking seems to be so boring that some of the war ganking crews are killing everything at a gate just to relieve the boredom.
|
DJTheBaron
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 11:32:00 -
[7]
if this were to make it in game, it wouldnt work, as nice an idea as it may be
module + skill to redirect a target lock to a tanking gang members right?
even if it was a commander drop module and you have the skill to lv5, you wouldnt be moving the lock of 50 ships
__________________________________________________
Scum, your all scum. |
Edenmain
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 12:05:00 -
[8]
I diagree DJ, I think if your hauling or trying to haul through any system where there is even the slightest possiblity of encountering 50+ ships then you deserve to be had and gankked.
I think this is more for smaller hauling runs. I have been in the situation were i have been trying to escort 2 or 3 haulers into 0.0 and due to 1 tempest on the gate we are stuck. The escorting ships at the time were a couple of inties so we couldnt do anythig and were stuck, other than wait for back up or go back and change ship to a scorp or something and then try again. After which time im sure the situation would have changed again.
I think its a good step to work with this "Target redirection" idea where we can, in a similar situation, sacrfice a frigate or other ship for the benefit of the haul. Moduals to counter this from the aggressors point of view would maybe cut their lock times (take the place of sensor boosters) and give the ships better chance to get away. Im not suggesting that it would hope to cut gate ganks completely (Although I hate it lol) but would require more strategy on the gankers behalf (ie: covering a cluster of systems to cut down target ships quicker). It would also mean bigger corps with more resources and team-work have better chances of prospering in 0.0.
Which is what this game is about really? The sum of the individuals is greater than the whole.
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 13:41:00 -
[9]
No more gates?
|
Haley Cosmic
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 13:58:00 -
[10]
y not think about it in an area affect? like the ECM burst or something. +5km radius to the targeting redirect per level or something... that way ships sitting far off could still target, but b/c they're far off they still won't be hitting that hard... just a thought, but i like ur idea
|
Golden Ratio
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 14:10:00 -
[11]
Um... usually the "far off ships" are battleships in sniper setups. Trust me, they hit hard :)
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 15:23:00 -
[12]
Eh. For ptotection there needs to be a way to link shields with another ship.
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Sevarus James
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 18:59:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Sevarus James on 09/04/2005 19:00:54
Another 'idea' along this line, is that perhaps instead of target 'deflection', perhaps the skill would be target 'masking' so that the EW protector ship can render the hauler (or whichever ship needs protecting) invisible to targeting.
Kinda like jamming works, but instead it prevents any ship from getting a lock. shrugs. There would of course have to be game mechanics that render this a limited ability, but EW warfare as more than just 'jam' seems like a potential solution to a problem as a 'skill' rather than having to alter existing gates/instas and such.
I'd prefer something like this as a solution or 'evolution' if you will of the way things work in EVE to radical changes.
I keep having these visions of grand chases thru a corridor with protectors actually being able to protect their own, and pirates or opposition having to overcome these schemes as opposed to just the static wait, blob, etc.
As to the 50 ship blob bit that poster is correct, this wouldn't solve THAT scenario, but as another poster mentioned...the pilots getting themselves INTO that situation deserve whatever they get. 
Anyway, tryin' for a constructive alternative to a problem that we all know exists.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |