| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Der Ewige
   |
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:27:00 -
[1]
So folks, I know it has been discussioned several times already, but I'm willing to bring it on again.
I realy think it should be possible for alliances to defend there area with some sort of automated defence.
Now bevore you start the flame fest on me, please read the whole tex, because I realy try to bring in some constructiv inputs.
First of all, what should this outodefence be good for, and what shouldn't it be possible to do.
The defence shoulde be to weak to realy threaten a invasion force (20 BS+).
But it should be strong eneought to work against ganking squads and pirats. With maximum power at the center of the alliance space and less power at the boarders.
For this purpose I thought about a value calles "Souvereignety Level" short "Sovlv", wich determinates how much defence you can build within this system.
The Sovlv should be a fix value for every system, which only can change during DT, when the claim's change.
It could be defined as the shortest distance towards a boarder System.
With this definition Sovlv would start at 0 and rise towards n (which could be very large, so I would set a max value to 10). Further I would define not claimed systems or systems with npc sovereignty as Sovlv = -1
This System would also give benefits when you claim large blocks without any system left out. One unclaimed system in the centre would decrees the nearby Sovlvl dramatically and therefore weaken the defence.
So now we have this Sovlv which starts a 0 at the boarder and goes on until 10 in the back lands.
Based on this value you should be able to deploy a number of sentries at each object which delivers enough PG to run them (Stations and Jump gates). The number of sentries allowed could be equal to Sovlv while a Small Battery counts as one sentry, a medium as two and a large as for.
As the sentries donÆt have a force field around them they can easily and fast be destroyed by a large enough force but in numbers of around 10 they should give good protection against small hostile groups.
Gate Sentries should be configurable like POS guns, but maybe all the setting applies for whole alliance space.
So that was the main idea, everything which follows from here on are small additional ideas 
First I think there should be a warning then, when ever you enter the boarder system of an alliance telling you if the sentries would fire on you if you go on and what the conditions would be do avoid them firing on you.
Claiming whole constellations or regions should give a bonus to max sentries. Like consolation = 50% bonus, region = 100% bonus.
It should only be possible to deploy sentries which match the type of the object (Gate, Station) they are deployed around.
And now to my last an craziest idea:
Concord could restrict the number of allowed sentries. The restrictions could be like followed: Based on the Alliance Security Status (the average security status of all alliance members that were online in the last month, calculated once per week), your alliance could be restricted to lesser sentries than normal. Like a +5 alliance has no restrictions, +0 alliance has a -33% restriction and a -5 alliance a -66% restriction. Now your ally is free to follow or break this restrictions. If you follow your ally will be marked as a "lawful" alliance. If you chose to break this restrictions this has 2 effects. First you get a +50% bonus on allowed sentry (now you think I am crazy uh) but the second effect would a virtual security hit of -50% (virtual means it is a fixed multiplier which disappears as soon as you leave the ally or the ally turns into a lawful ally). That would make a normal +5 player to a -2.5 and a +0 to a -5. So being a pirate ally means hell lot of defence but no high secure empire access (at least not without alts).
So tell me what you think about all my crazy ideas 
|
Antoinette Civari
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:32:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 16/08/2005 12:33:07
NPCs should NEVER protect pilots in .0 systems in ANY way, thats what you got your fighters for.
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:44:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Antoinette Civari
Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 16/08/2005 12:33:07
NPCs should NEVER protect pilots in .0 systems in ANY way, thats what you got your fighters for.
yes. Please CCP , please, NEVER change that.
Thats what make EVE so special.
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:44:00 -
[4]
It's up to the players that claimed the system to defend it, not npcs. If they can't do that then they don't deserve to hold their claim to the system.
Stop trying to turn 0.0 into a 1.0 with crockite.
|
Der Ewige
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:50:00 -
[5]
First of all I don't want npc's to defend the space.
I sugested to make it possible to deplay POS guns (sentry guns called in this threat) around gates.
As I have writen, it should not be the purpose of this sentrys to protect the System against hostile invasion. No, they should only grant a limited protection to every one wich wants to live inside the space of an alliance. That would help to bring people out of empire to 0.0 space. Because it would be possilbe to creat a pseudo save space in 0.0.
But it is sitll 0.0 space, so no securety hits. You could kill the sentrys easy with some Bs unless you are in the HQ systems of the Alliance and so one...
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 12:57:00 -
[6]
Automated defences are npcs. You basically want these things to do your defence for you. If they are so easy to kill then there isnt any point to them at all really is there.
|
Siri Danae
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:02:00 -
[7]
Sovereignty gives too much for too little as it is.
Alliances should be forced to do something other than gank and put up a flag (aka a POS) to get their name on the map.
------
I generally assume the following:
1. 95% of Empire Carebears don't get 0.0 PVPers.
2. 95% of 0.0 PVPers don't get Empire Carebears.
3. 100% of Ore Thieves steal just to upset the Miners. |
Professor McFly
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:12:00 -
[8]
Personally, I think over time, 0.0 should be colonised by player alliances, and begin to resemble faction space, with alliance controlled sentry guns the same as there are in lowsec. Of course, as this happens, new 0.0 regions are discovered even further from npc Empire space. Isn't that the ultimate target of deepspace exploration? To exploit the rich resources there and establish civilisation in the big black beyond?
I think that's the way the game is headed, with outposts being undestroyable and freighters for logistics. Personally, I think that's what the true successful alliance would do, not just go around picking fights in their 0.0 playground.
Think about it, all those 0.4 systems were once 0.0, before the NPC factions moved in... wouldn't it be awesome if a large alliance could do a similar thing for themselves in 0.0?
Let's say an outpost is built in a 0.0 system that neighbours a 0.1, and because of its proximity to empire, the controlling alliance was allowed to build sentry guns at gates and stations. Maybe this would result in the neighbouring 0.1 system now changing into a 0.2, because it's no longer neighbouring completlely lawless space? And thus the real Exodus occurs, not overnight but over years. I'm dreaming I know, but that's the game I hope Eve will become.
|
Purask
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:13:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Purask on 16/08/2005 13:16:08
ppl cant be 24/7 online to protect their space and not all alliances/corps have members from all time zones.
Also u cant honestly say that alliance members are there to idle at all gates 24/7 to establish some sort of law in ur own space.
I agree with DerEwige fully that there needs to be a way to achive at least a minimum level of law in ur own space.
Using ur members for such boring tasks cant be the way to go, u really dont want to force alliances and their members to constantly idle at the gates just to kill maybe 1 or 2 pirates a day?
U talk about alliances should be able to protect their territory but thats simply impossible, there is too much space and too many objects and this game shouldnt end up in being a full time job.
I still dont see ur point why automated guns shouldnt be allowed.
It would finaly make player owned space to real player empires with their own defence and own security lvls.
This would give the player owned space a much bigger feel of being a real player driven empire instead of some lonely system claimed by some alliance and would change the uselessness of claimed space to something meaningfull.
Alliance space must get more importance and if alliances want to create their own corner of "empire space" then they should have the ability to do it.
Everyone else is still free to open their space for outlaws, not to mention that the rules of 0.0 wont be effected by it, just that it wont be that easy anymore to enter alliance space by unwanted ppl and yes that would help 0.0 space a lot to get populated.
Ppl who are against it are either just alliances who prefer a nomadic playing style (they claim huge parts of space but are barely around to enforce law) or those player who profit from the fact that alliances have hardly a chance to effectivly controll their space.
|
Purask
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:17:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Purask on 16/08/2005 13:18:40
Originally by: Antoinette Civari
Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 16/08/2005 12:33:07
NPCs should NEVER protect pilots in .0 systems in ANY way, thats what you got your fighters for.
i guess that means we will never see 5 ships at a 5 POS to get protection from it?
And btw drones are also "NPC's", guess u wont use them too.
|
Doshi Mazir
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:18:00 -
[11]
I don't understand why some people have big problems with a small number of automated defenses, as explained above, it would never be a threat against a real invading force.
I think it's a great idea, many alliances are bothered by small groups of so-called pirates whose main goal seems to be ganking indy's and logging off when someone comes along to kill them. Where's the risk-vs-reward there?
Automated defenses will create a barrier for single players or small groups trying to enter alliance space, it forces the attacker to actually form up a reasonable fleet and dedicate enough manpower to attack an alliance.
|
Hellspawn666
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:19:00 -
[12]
Well i can see why you would want this kind of thing i mean its cool when ure in an alliance and you feel you can defend the borders with things and reinforce areas and think about it like a fort, however from a gaming point of view when u step back u realise that all this would do is increase the blob waring that is already going on.
We want to get ppl into 0.0 alliances that particpate not jsut have everyone from empire joining up because they can mine and not be threatened. Its already increadbly easy to avoid gankers in your own space. I dont think ive ever been ganked in an npc or mining setup.
All this idea would do is destroy any kind of small side combat and tbh thats wot i enjoy most about this game the 3v3s or 2v2s that you really remember for being close not friggin 30vs30 lagfest where its all gankadamage at long range thats just so lame and requires no skill. Small team combat is where pvping skill comes in please dont ruin that and make this into who has the biggest blob/the most isk.
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Purask
Originally by: Antoinette Civari
Edited by: Antoinette Civari on 16/08/2005 12:33:07
NPCs should NEVER protect pilots in .0 systems in ANY way, thats what you got your fighters for.
i guess that means we will never see 5 ships at a 5 POS to get protection from it?
POS do not protect system from anyone.
|
Kerby Lane
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:23:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Doshi Mazir
I don't understand why some people have big problems with a small number of automated defenses, as explained above, it would never be a threat against a real invading force.
I think it's a great idea, many alliances are bothered by small groups of so-called pirates whose main goal seems to be ganking indy's and logging off when someone comes along to kill them. Where's the risk-vs-reward there?
Automated defenses will create a barrier for single players or small groups trying to enter alliance space, it forces the attacker to actually form up a reasonable fleet and dedicate enough manpower to attack an alliance.
You mean NPC will protect alliance space from any threat except large blobs ?
Where is risk vs reward for high end ore miners then ?
For NPC hunters ?
|
Doshi Mazir
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 13:50:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kerby Lane
You mean NPC will protect alliance space from any threat except large blobs ?
First of all, it's not npc's. The turrets obviously need to be placed and provided by the alliance itself. And yes, alliance space will only be vulnerable to large blobs. It's their space, they set the rules. Maybe it should even be accompanied by alliance members being outlaws in empire, should increase trade and get more people into 0.0 as well.
At the moment alliances still get crap for trying to build infrastructure in 0.0 imo.
Originally by: Kerby Lane
Where is risk vs reward for high end ore miners then ?
For NPC hunters ?
Maybe you haven't noticed but both categories safespot or log when hostiles enter the system.
|
Antoinette Civari
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 14:04:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Purask
Edited by: Purask on 16/08/2005 13:16:08 a lot
If alliances cant defend their space ( because of whatever region ) they have to a) get more fighters to cover more terriotry / timezones or b) claim a smaller region.
NPC protection would roaly screw over all small pirate corps and ganksquads because they invest time in order to get kills while you could just deploy sentrys and forget about the problem. Its like i'd request npc ganksquads that run around on my command.
I like the idea of big player-runned empires ( basically to blow em to bits  ) but it is not possible to implent something like that as it stands because it screws with the whole riks/reward thing. You cant give players the ability to get a lot of isk in a safe environment ! Thats why lvl 4 missions and ravens got nerfed ;)
|
dmaul raven
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 14:41:00 -
[17]
Im up for gate sentrys, but the idea of NPC¦s patrolling alliance space is awful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Fendor Atar
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:28:00 -
[18]
Its funny how u talk abaout the small fight and then talk abaout how u cant reach the NPC hunters and miners... funny indeed
anyway as it is now it is not easy to defend allaince space u can fly into ANY alliance space without any problem u can run around shot people and most oftenly the alliance cant do crap abaout it unless they got uber PvPers and most dont got that.
there should be BIG limits on this ofc i dont want it to turn into wall but it should stop people from gate camping in alliance space, that is by far enough to make a alliance feal safer.
|
Purask
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:38:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Purask on 16/08/2005 15:39:37
noone was talking about NPC ships, its simply about sentry guns nothing more.
And i still dont see the problem with it.
Its not about u to decide if an alliance wants to offer a more secure place in 0.0 for other ppl.
And i can only repeat it, saying to claim less space or get more pilots doesnt solve the problem cause u cant expect ppl to idle 24/7 at gates to protect their own space against single pirates or spies.
Lets also not forget that it wont be easy to get the requirements for placing sentries and that it would cost the alliance and that a group of players can still break any sentry defence.
This wouldnt be more than some minimum defence and there would be more than enough 0.0 systems left without any sentry defence at all.
The only thing that would change is that entering real alliance space wouldnt be so easy anymore and that all alliances could offer empire players and corps at least some kind of security.
Saying that alliances should be able to offer this protection is just unrealistic not even corps like BoB or [5] are able to make sure that they can protect their space cause borderline patrols are just a boring and ineffective task.
I think the suggestion that at least alliance core systems which have outposts and stations can place enough sentries so that u need at least some BS to destroy them is totaly ok.
And for alliance border systems it would be enough if u could just place some defence to stop at least some pirates in frigs.
I dont mind 0.0 being lawless territory but its about time that alliances get the tools to do something with their owned space and create real player empires.
0.0 space is not there for PvP alliances to have their own playground, its made for players to populate it and build up their own world but atm it seems some PvP alliances prefer their nomadic playing style and only thing they want to do is to fight instead of actualy creating something.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:42:00 -
[20]
I wouldnt trust npc turrets worth a dammn. One wrong tick and the sentries start popping half the alliance and their +5s. Definitely not worth the trouble until CCP overhauls the controls.
|
Shidhe
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:49:00 -
[21]
The Amarr dont like me - I can still enter Amarr space. If an alliance could get automated defences to keep anyone they liked out, then 0.0 space would be CLOSED to anyone without a blob of BS. If the Amarr sentries don't zap me, then why should those of some random alliance? Why implement something likely to restrict access to 0.0 even more?
The only way this idea could possibly work is if the automated defences fired only on enemies in a declared war. You want to keep everyone out, then declare war on everyone!
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 15:59:00 -
[22]
NPC defending players is bad, especially when one can deploy them in chokepoints.
Gates should never be something you can pay npcs to close down for you.
0.0 is about the players, not about npcs defending players while they AFK mine arkonor.
------------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 16:09:00 -
[23]
there should be nothing like sentries at gate
but you should be able to install spy satellites, showing you locals, and advanced scanning modules
you could maybe also install fortified defences, which must be piloted by players (would be cool at least)
Your bla bla hit bla bla for bla bla damage. Wanna have some bubu now? |
Doshi Mazir
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 16:47:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Shidhe
Edited by: Shidhe on 16/08/2005 15:54:53
The Amarr dont like me - I can still enter Amarr space.
That has been an issue for a long time, afaik CCP is still planning changing that and make faction standings actually mean something when you are traveling in their space.
Originally by: Shidhe
If an alliance could get automated defences to keep anyone they liked out, then 0.0 space would be CLOSED to anyone without a blob of BS.
What business do single players exactly have in alliance space if they aren't on good terms with that alliance? Don't go where you aren't welcome, don't blame the sentries, go kill the alliance.
Originally by: Shidhe
If the Amarr sentries don't zap me, then why should those of some random alliance? Why implement something likely to restrict access to 0.0 even more?
Not some random alliance, an alliance that has put much trouble and effort into developing, populating and building infrastructure in their little patch of 0.0. A patch of 0.0 that you seem to think you are entitled to but have done nothing to deserve access to.
Automated defenses are a long way off I think, but it would help the population of 0.0 space a lot. If you can create a small 0.0 empire which is relatively safe from small incursions it's time to break out the veld crystals and actually do meaningful production outside of empire.
|
Agnar Koladrov
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 16:59:00 -
[25]
[insert sarcasm]
people think outside the box for a moment will ya.
[/sarcasm]
I think it is a nice idea Der Ewige came up with and it needs to be looked into really carefully.
I can see several possibilityes in this idea:
- Allies vs alliances, friendly, allies doen`t normally shoot eachother in bad blood, unless it is something personal or for fun.
- Enemy vs alliance, well speaks for itself, automated defences come online the moment the enemy jumps into a particular Alliance controlled system
- Neutrals vs Alliance no problem, unless you attack them first.
- Neutrals vs neutrals, same as it has ever been in 0.0.
The only ones being at risk, I can see, are players who are at war with that alliance or players who attack them on there home turf.
And so what if there are 5 to 10 systems in 0.0 that are defended by alliance sentries/per alliance? Would give a whole lot more depth to the game, management and defence wise.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 17:08:00 -
[26]
tbh after a bit more thought... the only thing that would balance this idea would be if an alliance had an outpost, they could deploy defenses ONLY in that system. Lets face it... if someone spends the 40 billion required to build outpost (20bil in npc goods + 20 bil in mins), they can easily afford 9-12 dreads and have the manpower to defend it if it comes under siege. This will prevent people putting up outposts at chokepoints as it would be nearly impossible to bring that many haulers through to fill up the outpost with the mins w/o anyone popping it.
However certain things must be looked at first. Esp the gun settings and standings. Ive heard standing slots are a problem and with how bugged POS guns are , there needs to be an overhaul before this becomes viable.
|
Darcon
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 17:30:00 -
[27]
How about something a bit easier to start with?
Allow sovereignty or an advanced form (Outpost) of it to grant you gate control. The border gates of your area become player conquerable. You set an access list and jumps are denied unless you take it by force.
Make the damage required to take similar to the early conquerable stations (about 20 min of effort with a battleship fleet). This gives you a measure of "control" keeping out the low/norisk frig/cruiser ganking fleets, while still allowing a reasonable force to strike with a small delay.
Control of space is control of movement. Player conquerable gates with controls are the only real mechanism for that.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 17:34:00 -
[28]
Edited by: SengH on 16/08/2005 17:34:44
VERY bad idea... Hed-gp and keberz for an example. You take over hed gp and conquer the keberz gate. Now no one can jump in or out.. or retake the keberz gate as its in a .5 system.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 18:04:00 -
[29]
What I don't understand is, why aren't player created empires subject to the same rules that govern NPC ones? Bear with me here.
By my actions, I can tick off the Caldari faction. Otherwise, I can go through their space and use their resources, mine their ore, etc. Their military doesn't bother me unless I'm smuggling something through that they don't like, or I've shot down enough of their spies in Gallente space through agent missions that my faction level drops low enough for them to take notice.
How come as players we can't take territory and do the same? Right now 0.0 is lawless regardless of how "nice" a particular alliance is. The usual rule of thumb is if you're not in the alliance (or especially if you're on a KOS list or don't have a pass) you're probably going to get shot down.
How about a system where the players can flag their claimed territory as hostile or non-hostile. Where you can come and go in non-hostile territory, set up shop at their stations if you like, without having to constantly look over your shoulder out of fear of the alliance that holds the area? Kind of like empire space, except if you tick off the guys who run it you're fair game. Hostile space would be the more secured space where maybe the alliance wishes to have 100% control over and it's an enter-at-your-own-risk type of thing.
Either way, let us see it on the map. That way, newer players can look and see areas they can go check out areas in 0.0 that aren't patrolled by ganksquads, but a local militia that monitors the area and makes sure things are "peaceful". Might help the "exodus" along.
The idea here is not to nerf or buff 0.0, but to give the players the tools to create real empires that can benefit or challenge other players of the game. People could then feel inclined to set up industry in those areas since there are nice ores and plenty of people willing to spend money on the products you build there. Also, you'd have more of an attachment to an area you have a vested interest in holding, beyond just being dots on a map.
Thoughts?
___winterblink/warp_drive_active/eve_nature_vraie// |
Kraven Kor
|
Posted - 2005.08.16 18:13:00 -
[30]
Originally by: SengH
Edited by: SengH on 16/08/2005 17:34:44
VERY bad idea... Hed-gp and keberz for an example. You take over hed gp and conquer the keberz gate. Now no one can jump in or out.. or retake the keberz gate as its in a .5 system.
Simple enough to fix: Only gates going FROM and TO 0.0 can be conquered. So the gate in HED-GP to Keberz could not be conquered on either side.
Not to say I 100% support this option. What they need is better scanning options -- make it so we can easily hunt down enemies in systems where we have sovereignty.
Allow POS to have a scanner you can deploy which lets you find players in system without using scan probes. But, this scanner should alert all in system that it is scanning, so the enemy could still get out in time. But no amount of warping about will help, once the scanner starts it would only be a matter of time before alliance players can just warp to an enemy like a bookmark.
The whole issue is that probes are too easy to defeat by constantly moving, and with instas and a bit of know-how you can pretty much go anywhere with little to no risk of getting blowed up. I've been in 0.0 for 7~8 months and the only times I have died were either in fleet ops or because I wasn't paying attention. I have never been killed in transit unless it was a system where I didn't have a bookmark, or from not paying attention to the map and thus not noticing the 20+ ship gate camp in the next system.
They need to make it easier for us to enforce territory claims -- not give us NPC's or anything to do it for us.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |