| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Somatic Neuron
   |
Posted - 2005.10.18 14:35:00 -
[1]
Scenario: Alliance A establishes an Alliance Control Tower in system XYZ-AB, claiming sovereign status over the system. Over time, Alliance A builds a permanent, non-conquerable station in XYZ-AB, whether this is an outpost that is upgraded to a full station, or it is built as a full station. Alliance A realizes the need to attract non-alliance members to XYZ-AB, so they set out to secure the system even more, trying to prevent Alliance B members from causing havoc in their system. To that end, Alliance A purchases the following items: Alliance Sentry Guns and Alliance Police Drones and deploys them around the stargates and station, as well as some Police Drones that respond anywhere in the system. They set the Police Drones and Sentry Guns to attack anyone with an alliance standing of less than 0.0, which currently is only members of Alliance B, and to attack anyone, that is not a member of Alliance A, that meets the same requirements as criminal flagging in Empire space.
As another critical step in securing their section of space, Alliance A establishes Alliance Control Towers in the surrounding systems, and establishes a lesser amount of Sentry Guns and Police Drones in the same manner as in XYZ-AB.
Now that non-Alliance members can feel a relative amount of safety in XYZ-AB and surrounding areas, they are more likely to come out and interact with Alliance A...selling ships and items and minerals and bringing out various goods that Alliance A has established as needed items.
Next comes the next critical piece of the puzzle. Alliance A establishes a bounty system on the ships of Alliance B, setting a bounty of 5m and a 0.05 alliance standing increase on each battleship of Alliance B, and so on...this gives incentive to non-alliance members to help keep the area secure. And, the standing increase can be used to lower the price of services and taxes in Alliance A's station.
And, finally, comes the last piece of the puzzle. Alliance A hires NPC Agents for their system/station that offer missions that can be acomplished, with every x number of them being an important mission for the Alliance, which raises their standing with Alliance A.
---------- |
Rodge
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 14:42:00 -
[2]
*Stunned*
So players no longer need to defend their own space??? AFK mining sessions in 0.0 4TW!!!!
Sentry guns are a possibility, but they'll never be even nearly as powerful as the Empire ones. They'll be an aid to defending space, but won't be a defense in and of themselves.
And you'll never get NPC agents in Player Built Stations.
[ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
|
Palnatoke
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 14:46:00 -
[3]
So you're saying this will be exactly like empire space?
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 14:48:00 -
[4]
Tbh CCP should never, ever, EVER add npcs to 0.0 to defend space.
Sentries are fine by me, as long as they dont provide 100% security on the stargates.
------------------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
kcahn
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 14:55:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Tbh CCP should never, ever, EVER add npcs to 0.0 to defend space.
Sentries are fine by me, as long as they dont provide 100% security on the stargates.
yaaa, or griefers like you wont be able to grief players without risk, ohnoes, griefers are worried!
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 14:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Tbh CCP should never, ever, EVER add npcs to 0.0 to defend space.
Sentries are fine by me, as long as they dont provide 100% security on the stargates.
It might become a reality since they want players to create their own empires.. which is really really far from now.
But I still think theres more than enough people in any alliance roaming around looking for stuff to kill by which to base a navy around.
would be kinda funny to get alerts of players breaking the law, then teleporting right next to them and murdering them in the face :\
Perpetually driven, your end is our beginning.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 15:15:00 -
[7]
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/10/2005 15:16:38
One small detail which breaks this scenario... NPC empires have unlimited resources and their automatic defenses cannot be destroyed/ jammed/ whatever.
This does not apply to player-owned defense systems. Gate sentries can buy bit of time to assemble player-controlled response and gank some random small ship... but that's it. Any moderately sized invasion force will smash them easily.
|
Rodge
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 15:17:00 -
[8]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
But I still think theres more than enough people in any alliance roaming around looking for stuff to kill by which to base a navy around.
would be kinda funny to get alerts of players breaking the law, then teleporting right next to them and murdering them in the face :\
Maybe not as extreme as that.
But maybe if someone commits a crime in an alliance-held system, they get a little warp beacon that alliance members can see (must be how Concord do it).
So alliance militia could warp to the criminal and take care of him.
It's an overpowered idea, but something similar could work and would certainly make it worth claiming systems...
[ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
|
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 15:23:00 -
[9]
I dunno, "LAW DRONES" aren't too insane, provided they don't really do much damage. Maybe tacklers?
At the very least have some sort of an alternate, automated standing system for alliances. You know, you could have Sec Status with individual alliances, as opposed to the manually-set standings.
But like Digi said, it's a long way down the road. First the very colonization and population of space must be sorted out proper, yah?
---
Is this a constructive post? |
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 15:31:00 -
[10]
CCP said something about sentry guns in the post-devchat interview. Pretty sure those will be in.
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 15:43:00 -
[11]
I think there should most definatly be better defenses for 0.0 Space.
The truth about 0.0 is: Nobody goes there because the most PvP oriented person wins, not the most industrious. If you're a bunch of miners and capable of cranking out half a million police ships and sentry guns you should be able to hold your space just as well as if you're a bunch of PvPers who care to stay awake till 5am camping gates...
Of course Police and Sentrys in Alliances should not be invincible like in empire. Every police ship you want to field should cost you the acctual ship - so putting a player in it will still be a way more effective use of your resources.
|
Paul Castrin
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 16:07:00 -
[12]
Well all that would be way cool. WouldnĘt take the place of players actively defending their space but sure would quiet the whiners that say alliances are only there for ganking. The whole issue is space control and until CCP gives us all the tools to truly carve out space AND defend it, all action in .0 boils down to tribal warfare not empire building.
Also, the common "wisdom" is that if you are defending you have lost ... well tell that Russia. The defended quite well and with all they had against possibly the largest offensive assault ever in human history. When they won that defensive battle they were able to attack. Without the ability to defend you can't hold what you have taken. Attack is the rule but you must have a base to attack from and without defense you wonĘt have it. Also it's a hollow victory if you can't even enjoy what you've won.
Originally by: Raem Civrie
First the very colonization and population of space must be sorted out proper, yah?
Totally separate issue and I doubt it will ever happen. The problem lies in people not seeing any benefit to low sec space. And when one of the 800# alliance gorillas decides to "cleanse" what is basically empire space they are even more turned off from the idea. Of course now if some of those alliances in empire came down to defend "their" space, maybe with a few DED dreads, now that would be something to see and maybe boost the morale of the neutrals in the war zone. (note: yes I'm talking about the coming war on empire in Aridia)
Despite that there are still no real stated ideas on how to fix the population crowding. People go where it's most profitable with the least risk, its human nature to want to enjoy things and not have to look over your shoulder every second. Angst is not something you can enjoy. The only way that people will move out of high sec space is if they have an over riding reason to but CCP can't do that because removing the baubles in empire would cause people to leave.
Should alliances be eventually allowed to carve space and setup defined borders and be able to truly control their space this might help as it will create havens but I don't feel this will fix the problem. Sentry towers (and "police" drones (great idea btw) if they could figure out how to work them in) would go well toward this goal.
Peace.
|
gfldex
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 16:15:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Raem Civrie
But like Digi said, it's a long way down the road.
Sure? We can claim systems. We can set sentries beside a POS. We can set standings for a POS. We can't place sentries beside a gate. How much code would it take to allow a POS close to a gate? I would guess way under 100.
We may get a surprise with kali. :)
--
$ perl -n -e 'print "Stop blameing pirates! Oveur is the root of all evil!\n" if m/podkill|lost my ship|gank|gate camp|Verone/;'
|
Shidhe
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 16:30:00 -
[14]
I have a negative standing with the Ammatar - but their sentries dont zap me on arrival in their space. If you want to automatically zap someone with sentries, then you should use a war declaration on them. The alternative is that 0.0 becomes the exclusive territory of big alliances. Are there to be warnings on gates `the system ***** is the territory of alliance ****, and you will be automatically fired at on entry as they dont like anyone else'?
Not bad ideas in general, but this sentry thing needs some work, or some folks including me) may go round shooting the things on principle (after they shoot at me, of course, I'm law abiding. 
|
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 16:30:00 -
[15]
I never said anything remotely close to indestructible sentries or indestructible drones...the drones would be like you can buy/build now...at least in capabilities, but they would have some autonomous controls built in, so they could respond without interaction. The sentries are apparently already planned for Kali, so that's not too difficult to imagine. CCP has been saying all along that they wanted alliances to carve out their own empires in 0.0 space...this is the only way they could do it.
---------- |
Rodge
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 16:43:00 -
[16]
Originally by: gfldexSure? We can claim systems. We can set sentries beside a POS. We can set standings for a POS. We can't place sentries beside a gate. How much code would it take to allow a POS close to a gate? I would guess way under 100.
We may get a surprise with kali. :)
[/quote
Um, you won't you know!
There's a reason you can't anchor a POS beside a gate!!!!
The firepower of a POS is way way way way beyond anything you'll see CCP allow at a player sentried gate.
[ 2005.04.17 00:34:30 ] Nagilam > u better leave Rodge, u will not gank any1 else 2nite......
|
Heritor
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 16:50:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Palnatoke
Next comes the next critical piece of the puzzle. Alliance A establishes a bounty system on the ships of Alliance B, setting a bounty of 5m and a 0.05 alliance standing increase on each battleship of Alliance B, and so on...this gives incentive to non-alliance members to help keep the area secure. And, the standing increase can be used to lower the price of services and taxes in Alliance A's station.
Now if alliance B was to do the same thing I think I could make much Isk'ies
|
Harisdrop
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 17:04:00 -
[18]
It will be here. Eve will have faction standings. NPC systems will fire on you if you are negitive standings. There will be player owned systems and such.
I dont think its that far away like 2005 q4 or 2006 q1. Kalhi will change EVE again. We all will adjust and the players of 2003 will cry once more!
For EVE to break 20k online users we will have our own empires. PVP will need Industials inside its own alliance and not hire them!
--------------------------
Does it matter why, its when is more crucial!
|
Miay
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 17:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Harisdrop
NPC systems will fire on you if you are negitive standings.
Are you insane?! Do you know the implications of such action? Well, let me enlighten you: The only way to raise sec status is to kill some NPC... this means you are ruining your standing with a NPC faction. If you run missions, this means you are ruining your status with more than one NPC faction.
So tell me good sir, how the hell do you fix your standing with a particular faction without ruining another one? Or, how do you fix your standing with a particular faction without entering its space? Oh, that's right, YOU DON'T. |
pshepherd
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 17:40:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Miay
So tell me good sir, how the hell do you fix your standing with a particular faction without ruining another one? Or, how do you fix your standing with a particular faction without entering its space? Oh, that's right, YOU DON'T.
keep your hair on, newbie bashing isn't allowed 
anyway, there are several corps which have agents all over the place. Just from memory i remember that there are several amarr corps which have agents in Caldari space, so there must be similarities with the other empires.
==============
This is a sig |
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 17:40:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Miay
Originally by: Harisdrop
NPC systems will fire on you if you are negitive standings.
Are you insane?! Do you know the implications of such action? Well, let me enlighten you: The only way to raise sec status is to kill some NPC... this means you are ruining your standing with a NPC faction. If you run missions, this means you are ruining your status with more than one NPC faction.
So tell me good sir, how the hell do you fix your standing with a particular faction without ruining another one? Or, how do you fix your standing with a particular faction without entering its space? Oh, that's right, YOU DON'T.
It already happens. You just havent seen people complaining about it. If you get below -5 of a faction. Their navy will show up when you enter their territory. And if you need to pull up standings, there are sisters of EVE missions that will fix it. You dont need to go into that region.
|
Harisdrop
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 17:43:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Harisdrop on 18/10/2005 17:53:36
Pick your friends and hate thy enemy. Besides, I can go into any npc region and I did agent missions for 1.5 years. Its called Social skills do you have any!
When you do missions they raise it to the corp you work for. Only important missions effect your Factional standings. You really have to do alot nowadays to really effect your standings.
--------------------------
Does it matter why, its when is more crucial!
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 18:02:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/10/2005 18:04:57
Originally by: Rodge
*Stunned*
So players no longer need to defend their own space??? AFK mining sessions in 0.0 4TW!!!!
Sentry guns are a possibility, but they'll never be even nearly as powerful as the Empire ones. They'll be an aid to defending space, but won't be a defense in and of themselves.
I'd assume the oposite. A sentry gun is a sentry gun in the game, and CCP have indicated sentry guns will be buildable..
Sure, it's an assumption, but so is yours. My point is we cannot many ANY generalisations right now about this. It's too early. (PoS guns would be STUPIDLY overpowered for gates, as I'm sure people realise).
I'm in favour of short-term deployable guns. Anyone can deploy them in 0.0, but usually they last 1 hour. If you hold sovereinty, they last 24 hours. Think long range cruiser gun, max.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 18:10:00 -
[24]
Wow, some strong opinions here.
Gaining standing with a player controlled alliance would have to be done either by shooting enemy player's ships per the bounty system described, or actually talking to them 
---------- |
Jeeseven Fortoo
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 19:02:00 -
[25]
The way player-purchased NPC guards work in my old game works pretty well, (Dark Age of Camelot). The guards are pretty weak. The single most important feature of the NPC guards are NOT that they can defend well. They can't. (They only can handle defending against one or two players, sometimes three if the players are really incompetent.) Their most important feature is that when attacked, they NOTIFY the entire alliance that they are under attack. THEN they die. This gives the alliance members time to get to the system and defend it.
Again, player-purchased NPC guards should not be able to successfully defend against a force of 3 or more players. But their primary function is as an early-warning system that lets the real defenders (players) get to the system and respond to the threat.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 21:59:00 -
[26]
Why would that cause Havoc? Mineral Prices are messed up as they are anyways, because they are a completly unrealistic representation of what minerals are worth since they go by the amount of minerals availible and security of the systems they are in, not by the amount of time one spends mining them.
The hardest mineral to get a hold of in large quantities usually is Tritanium, because nobody wants to spend the time mining something that only gives you a tiny fraction of the money compared to the time invested, and nobody wants to spend the money to make it worth the miners while on the mineral that makes up more then half of what thei're building...
If anything it would set the market straight if all those minerals that are idioticly overpriced would be availible in large quantities to just about anyone, maybe then miners would be payed according to the time they put into mining, not scowering belts for the rarer minerals.
|
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2005.10.19 15:25:00 -
[27]
Most likely, all of the minerals mined out there would remain in the claimed system that has the station(s), so that should not affect Empire prices at all. What will affect prices, but not mineral prices, is the next generation manufacturing...that will have to be supported by an industrial base of operations that is just not really that feasible at this point...given the state of the ping-pong POS wars that are currently happening.
---------- |
Gwenvahar
|
Posted - 2005.10.19 16:02:00 -
[28]
I think players should be able to build heavy automatic defenses at gate locations. Sentry guns lots of them, even a station with a massive shield generators that locks the gate in so trespassers must have or buy some kind of pass key with limited uses to travel through.. Empire building is best done with deplomacy and economics.. Any negotiation done at gunpoint is not really a negotiation.
|
StellarSheep
|
Posted - 2005.10.20 09:12:00 -
[29]
Ppl should be allowed to place some sentrys in grid near sg. And that sentrys should pwn for example 6-7 ppl frig gang.
Or in that system alliance should easly find ANY safespot. ANY. And everyone with 0.0 standings or lower shouldnt dissapear from space. Why? Because now u can push few ships/alts with goods/tools to enemy space dock/or log off in ss. And alliance can do nothing with that. Oh yeah some morons will come and say camp the gate. Watch the map bla bla bla. Yeah sure.
People who defend space should have the adventage. No the attackers. Of course if they pay for that adventage. Nothing for free. Btw im talking only about systems with outposts.
They should benefit owners. Ok alliances will have they own havens AND what? They`ll live there. Make ships/items etc. With time they`ll allow maybe some corps to mine/hunt in their space. Thats how it should work imho.
And about faction standings... if u have good standing with amarr u should be pwned on sight in minmatar space. I always thought that will work like that. And if u have for example +5 with amarr u have -5 with minmatar. Then i have +5 with min and -5 with amarr i could shoot u. Having standings should mean something. Now it`s only numbers ...
________________________________________________
StellarSheep
|
Somatic Neuron
|
Posted - 2005.10.21 14:05:00 -
[30]
Originally by: StellarSheep
Ppl should be allowed to place some sentrys in grid near sg. And that sentrys should pwn for example 6-7 ppl frig gang.
Or in that system alliance should easly find ANY safespot. ANY. And everyone with 0.0 standings or lower shouldnt dissapear from space. Why? Because now u can push few ships/alts with goods/tools to enemy space dock/or log off in ss. And alliance can do nothing with that. Oh yeah some morons will come and say camp the gate. Watch the map bla bla bla. Yeah sure.
People who defend space should have the adventage. No the attackers. Of course if they pay for that adventage. Nothing for free. Btw im talking only about systems with outposts.
They should benefit owners. Ok alliances will have they own havens AND what? They`ll live there. Make ships/items etc. With time they`ll allow maybe some corps to mine/hunt in their space. Thats how it should work imho.
And about faction standings... if u have good standing with amarr u should be pwned on sight in minmatar space. I always thought that will work like that. And if u have for example +5 with amarr u have -5 with minmatar. Then i have +5 with min and -5 with amarr i could shoot u. Having standings should mean something. Now it`s only numbers ...
I agreed with you right up until you started talking about faction standings. You make it sound like you cannot have good relations with people that are enemies of each other...that is simply not the case....now if you were shooting Minmatar faction ships to gain Amarr standings, then, definately, your Minmatar standing should go down...which I think it does.
As far as the In System "god mode" where you can automatically triangulate enemy safespots...well, perhaps we could have permanently anchored probes that at least give you general area views to make it quicker to track them with probes....something that costs money, is destroyable (if found) and provides some benefit I imagine you would have to anchor several in a system to give full coverage 
---------- |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |