| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Venture Frost
   |
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:47:00 -
[1]
Covers instajump removal in regulated space (0.1-1.0)
Goal: Reduce server load and free up resources for other calculations
Justification: Due to imperial policies and security concerns CONCORD has a vested interest in gate traffic and trans-system communications.
Implementation: Warp drive inhibitors are added to all gates and stations in security regulated space- providing a forced de-warp 15km from gate. This will allow for CONCORD registration and customs security scans.
Correcting for extraneous adverse effects in low sec systems:
A flexible delayed-response system
1. If a ship is destroyed in a low sec system due to camping (I.e proximity to either station or gate) , the
Episode is presented as ôbreaking newsö on the bulletin bords in that constellation. (ôa spokesperson says CONCORD is continuously monitoring the situationö)
2. If 2 ships are destroyed within a specified timeframe the information regarding what is destroyed and how many where implemented are presented as ôbreaking newsö within the region (ôOfficials say CONCORD is evaluating different scenarios of responseö)
3. If x number of ships are destroyed within a specified timeframe it will elicit a CONCORD response (based on what ships are destroyed (where loss of industrials are given higher priority due to their destructions adverse effects on the market and economy).
Response 1: X minutes after responce eliciting ships destruction, a carrier battle group warps in and secures the system. Ships that ellicit the response are in addition to being normally flagged given a permanent additive bounty (regardless of sec rating) and made legitimate kills all over regulated space for the duration of the CONCORD intervention. Policing forces will NOT launch drones to find perpetrators if they are still in system. The system will for the duration be regarded as security status 1.0.
("breaking news" across faction space)
After X-hours fleet withdraws.
Response 2: If same entity elicits CONCORD response again inside a specified timeframe OR a response is provoked in the same system inside a specified timeframe, the policing forces will deploy drones to find any perpetrators in the system.
During both responses the perpetrators will be allowed to use gates after ônormalö flag wears off, but can not dock at any stations belonging to the affected faction. At policed gates (0.5-1.0 CONCORD will engage when perpetrators approach gate, but will not prevent jump. Faction forces will engage 1 hour after CONCORD intervention (due to communications delay).
The implementation of this policy will increase the importance of intelligence, bulletin boards and ship fittings. While not giving campers a free hand in low sec systems, neither will carebears be given carte blanche. Low sec sytems would will remain as they should- not entirely safe.. They are by definition low security.
This will maintain BMs as a feature in the game while removing many instajumps and freeing server resources. Instajumps in 0.0 would thus remain for the time being.
This system of response could also be added to 0.0 systems bordering regulated space, as the different factions could be perceived as having an economic and political interest in the areas. I would expect the faction military assets to conduct such interventions- in accordance with current faction policies.
How does that sound?
Not an absolute solution, but a partial one that to me seems fair.
|
mirel yirrin
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:50:00 -
[2]
Did someone get killed by Gatecampers? boohoo suxb2u.
Now the Non-childish reply:
It is a very well worded and good idea, but sadly it will never happen. CCP are jsut too weak to make Major design changes just like that, they tend to want to slowly alter the game over time.
I would like it introduced if the concord that arrived were not omgwtfinstagankin2seconds type of 1.0 concord, but killable npcs, that you get major standing drops for killing, but drop very nice Concord loot.
---------------------------------
KORKY Is Recruiting now!
Convo me for More Details.
|
mirel yirrin
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:52:00 -
[3]
And another thing,
Insta's will not be removed. CCP don't want half of its player base up in arms about it.
---------------------------------
KORKY Is Recruiting now!
Convo me for More Details.
|
Hexlander
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:56:00 -
[4]
What about shortening the warp in to 5 to 10km distance from the gate?
--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--
Power corrupts. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely!(\_/) 00B
(0.0) License to kill
(r <) Banging the Universe 1 by 1
"OH... BUNNY!" |
Hexlander
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:58:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: mirel yirrin
Did someone get killed by Gatecampers? I would like it introduced if the concord that arrived were not omgwtfinstagankin2seconds type of 1.0 concord, but killable npcs, that you get major standing drops for killing, but drop very nice Concord loot.
Now i wanna kill Concord now >:)
--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--
Power corrupts. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely!(\_/) 00B
(0.0) License to kill
(r <) Banging the Universe 1 by 1
"OH... BUNNY!" |
Smart Bomb
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 23:42:00 -
[6]
A very well thought out and smart idea how ever would be futile, Im sure about 90% of all eve players would be in roit about that, takes a very long time just to other areas in the game why increase that time? Im sure all traiders and such would have your head :)
|
Venture Frost
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 10:29:00 -
[7]
CCP has stated as their intention, the removal of IJ. Though something should replace them so as not to create too much of a damaging vaccuum.
The idea I`ve presented is not supposed to make anyone overly happy, but maintain a level of balance between carebears and gankers. Secondly, as presented, the idea would force people to make a sacrifice between speed and cargo and level of safety and cargo. I perceive this as being a fair compromise. Thirdly it affects only regulated space. Different features would need to be examined for 0.0.
If IJs are to be removed- any such removal should coincide with the atmosphere and feel of the game.
I would very much like to hear input or alternatives to what i`ve presented- uber carebears not being happy with their IJs being removed isn`t really a valid counterpoint- though very understandable..:)
|
NattyDreadlock
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 11:07:00 -
[8]
Get rid of insta-jumps and traffic to low-sec/fringe systems will cease. With the rewards for non-combatants not justifying the risk the gate gankers will find themselves ganking each other as you all cluster up waiting for the rare hauler or unfortunate ganker in transit to pass through.
_____________________________
You hit "insert pirate" with a frozen turd right in the eye from your 150mm railgun for 0.0 damage. |
Rez Lo
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 15:32:00 -
[9]
I think instas are as much a means to decrease travel time as they are a defense against gankers. I would actually like to see a 0 or 5 km warp in to stargates in secure space (making instas irrelevant there) and leaving non secure space as it stands. I do like your breaking news idea for an enhanced atmosphere however, i would leave out the concord response. I also think this should only occurr in regions where a large amount of pilots have been killed in a short period of time. Then it becomes an interesting event, one which a posse of dogooders might respond to. Otherwise it will be pretty mundane and just another thing to ignore (hohum more breaking news).
|
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 18:36:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Rez Lo
I do like your breaking news idea for an enhanced atmosphere however, i would leave out the concord response. I also think this should only occurr in regions where a large amount of pilots have been killed in a short period of time. Then it becomes an interesting event, one which a posse of dogooders might respond to. Otherwise it will be pretty mundane and just another thing to ignore (hohum more breaking news).
Hum, CONCORD response would be quite logical. Low sec is supposed to be partialy controlled and defended by CONCORD (hence the sentries). And atm, ganking at gates is not right considering Risk vs Reward, as non asleep gankers can snipe without getting hit by sentries (then being able to fit full gank, as they don't need to tank sentries), and if monitoring local can fly away if they spot a potential danger for them (eg. a small fleet coming for them), quite not right imho.
Let's take a comparison with real life: residential/buisness areas are 1.0. When there is a crime in it you get the police right away. Areas where gangs operate are low sec, most of the time no police officer around. One or two killing, they don't bother. 10 bodies in 1h, and you can be sure they'll come in and chase the killers ;)
Originally by: Rez Lo
I think instas are as much a means to decrease travel time as they are a defense against gankers. I would actually like to see a 0 or 5 km warp in to stargates in secure space (making instas irrelevant there) and leaving non secure space as it stands.
Don't forget there is some wars in empire, so instas jumps without even making a bookmark first would give more difficulties to catch war targets.
Main thing I dislike in Venture's idea is it'll increase flight time... But maybe if adding a warp speed increase skill, it could do the trick (travel time would be increased by increased warp speed, having then less time between the time you start your warp and the time you get at destination, and decreased for people who currently have instas with forcing the approach of the gates, and it could be balanced so that in the end you keep somehow the same average travel time, or have a shorter one).
Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle
When I started EVE, I thought EVE would require dedication and long term planning. I could never dream that the third ship I piloted would be the end of the line.
|
Binary Mind
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 09:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Venture Frost
I would very much like to hear input or alternatives to what i`ve presented- uber carebears not being happy with their IJs being removed isn`t really a valid counterpoint- though very understandable..:)
I think that fighters use them way more than carebears
carebears hang in safe travel space (0.5+), set the autopilot and watch a movie
|
Ornament
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 11:05:00 -
[12]
umm no thanks ! If you are bored of camping a gate for countless hours and want more turkeys to shoot then please go and explore other aspects of EvE gameplay.
|
TuRtLe HeAd
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 13:41:00 -
[13]
Gate camping is horrible.
The only fix for instas is either removal or, Warp innaccuracy Whereby you deviate 15km from the bookmark in any direction, This can be narrowed down with a Warp Accuracy skill. To a Maximum of 5 Kms. The End result There is no sure fire way of INSTAJumping
------------------------------------------------
"Its not Feasible to Dismiss an Idea because of lag" |
Venture Frost
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 11:43:00 -
[14]
I don`t think warp inacuracy is the ONLY solution, nor do i think camping is pure evil. As things are atm camping is way too easy- i know, cause i do it a lot. It`s the hypocondriacs way to the extensive kill list. Though it may also be very rewarding.
I think implementing my idea, will force campers to become more mobile and creative. It will also force cargo runners to think more in the lines of cargo cap vs. safety when fitting- wich i think is fair for low sec travelling.
Increasing the warp speed for all ship classes (as suggested by soemeone else) would alleviate the loss in travel time.
Think the final question must be- will this idea actually be programmable and work as intended (i.e relieve servers and maintain balance between PvE and PvP players while enhancing the atmosphere of the game) or will it drain the servers even more? In short- would it actually work?
|
Drew Kelly
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 19:50:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Drew Kelly on 24/10/2005 19:50:48
I think your idea might actually cause more lag than instas. The best solution to me seems to be a warp to any object at 5 km and leave warp bubbles for sucessful gate camping.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |