| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Elly Artrald
Confidential Corp
2
   |
Posted - 2014.02.25 15:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Right now pirate faction towers are a lot more pricey than their regular counterparts (~2.5x the cost for "weak" pirate factions, ~5x the cost for "strong") for a 10 or 20% fuel benefit, which might be a good tradeoff for some uses but is pretty boring. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of the pirate factions, I propose two changes to pirate faction towers:
- Remove the sovholder notification when a pirate tower is anchored/onlined/etc. This lets pirate towers be used for ninja moon-mining, temporary staging for black ops or roaming gangs, and so on without being as easily detectable.
- Maybe reduce the anchor/online time of pirate towers somewhat? I don't know what effect this would have on game balance in e.g. wormholes, but it would help with the kinds of stealth/temporary tower uses I mentioned before.
Thoughts? |
Seliah
0mega.
34
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 15:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Elly Artrald wrote:
Maybe reduce the anchor/online time of pirate towers somewhat? I don't know what effect this would have on game balance in e.g. wormholes, but it would help with the kinds of stealth/temporary tower uses I mentioned before.
[/list]
Thoughts?
Don't pirate towers already have lower anchoring / unanchoring / onlining delays ?
|
Ali Aras
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
575
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 15:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm not sure, I can't log in right now, and I don't trust evelopedia's data for anything.
That said, I do like this "ninja tower" useage-- it seems like an interesting way to have a more firm base in hostile (sovnull) space, and of course, if you get found out, you might find yourself down 300m or so of stick. Alternately, if you find a sweet moon someone for some reason isn't already exploiting, you can mine it yourself, at the risk of being found out and driven off (and at the pain of logistics to get fuel in place).
http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Elly Artrald
Confidential Corp
5
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 15:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Seliah wrote:Elly Artrald wrote:
Maybe reduce the anchor/online time of pirate towers somewhat? I don't know what effect this would have on game balance in e.g. wormholes, but it would help with the kinds of stealth/temporary tower uses I mentioned before.
[/list]
Thoughts? Don't pirate towers already have lower anchoring / unanchoring / onlining delays ?
I think they have 10% and 20% reductions in anchor/online time, yeah. I was thinking more like 50% to make pirate towers more mobile :). |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Fidelas Constans
247
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
pirate towers definitely are boring and this sounds interesting |
covetor
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dont change due to price difference, as the price depends on the market. They cost so much, as there was no BPC drop for longer period and some people bought all the limited resource.
A few years before it was purely defense matter, harder deathstar was built from faction.
In these days it is easier to get proper fleet size, it is purely cost saving. |
Soaran Sikadi
Valkyries of Night
Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 16:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
This seems like a good idea to me, and not just due to pirate tower price. Pirate towers being only slightly better for economic purposes has always seemed a little silly to me. More fitting room might be another enhancement to set them apart, but I like Elly's idea better, as it encourages their use in conflict rather than encouraging their use in economic ventures in a hidden pocket somewhere. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
175
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
An interesting idea, although I think I'd rather see tower notifications disappear completely (imo no group should own a tower when they can't be bothered to notice if it's been reinforced or not). That said, I really do like the idea of making pirate towers less about fuel consumption and more about pirate-y things. |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1061
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:An interesting idea, although I think I'd rather see tower notifications disappear completely (imo no group should own a tower when they can't be bothered to notice if it's been reinforced or not). That said, I really do like the idea of making pirate towers less about fuel consumption and more about pirate-y things.
this exactly, the reason nullsec is unlivable for a small/independent entity is because they cannot interact with ANY asset from a larger group without seeing 100x their number within an hour or two.
half of this is power projection, the other half is omnipotent domain sovholders have, if they actually USED a system, they would see their POS either daily, or every other day, not just once a month when they are refueling it. so removing notofications entirely would be a major help to the "small man" faction of players. |
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
757
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 17:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
+1'd
Money at its root is a form of rationing.
When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
|
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
78
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
do this and their prices would rocket.... going from 5x to 50x (guess) |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1061
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:do this and their prices would rocket.... going from 5x to 50x (guess)
not necessarily, since they will still be just as available as before, aside from who can actually use them
right now they are at the price they are because there is literally NO actual demand for them, the few that there are are mostly in wormhole space and not under threat.
you add this mechanic to them and yes, the price may go up, but it wont increase to a ridiculous degree, because their new mechanic would be aimed at the poorer, smaller groups, who coudlnt afford it, which means they wouldnt buy, which means the price would slowly once again lower into equilibrium with demand.
TL;DR right now they are priced ridiculously because theya re faction towers, not because of their effectiveness, but they cant go up to high, especially if the reason people want to price them higher is a mechanic designed for poorer people to use them. they will change in price to fit their market. |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Empire
Flying Dangerous
655
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
I would rather see a T2 tower with this functionality than a faction tower. With T2 towers you would technically have unlimited supply to fill an insane demand. T2 towers would be priced appropriately for the effect. T2 is supposed to be a specialized role which this is. T2 resists would be nice for when you need to evac when discovered.
Just nerf the stront bay and PG/CPU to balance this out. It should be a tent instead of a fully defensible outpost. This would leave faction towers as the niche super towers that they are today.
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1062
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:I would rather see a T2 tower with this functionality than a faction tower. With T2 towers you would technically have unlimited supply to fill an insane demand. T2 towers would be priced appropriately for the effect. T2 is supposed to be a specialized role which this is. T2 resists would be nice for when you need to evac when discovered.
Just nerf the stront bay and PG/CPU to balance this out. It should be a tent instead of a fully defensible outpost. This would leave faction towers as the niche super towers that they are today.
while this makes more sense within the design theme of EVE (and heaven knows we should get T2 towers at some point, me likely a khanid skinned tower), i think the reason for this was that they were "pirate" towers, and therefore were designed for hiding, raiding, etc.
though the only 2 issues with that would be, that the towers would be better served having the ability to be anchored off-celestial for the "pirate" feel, like having your own deepspace complex, and second that pirate factions in EVE are full-fledged empires and are given the term pirate fort he same reason Rome gave the northern tribes the term "barbarians", because theyw ere part of the "civilization club". |
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
I quite like this idea too. Not watching your space, bad things could sneak up on you......
+1 |
Minimax Zed
Valkyries of Night
Of Sound Mind
9
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 18:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:I would rather see a T2 tower with this functionality than a faction tower. With T2 towers you would technically have unlimited supply to fill an insane demand. T2 towers would be priced appropriately for the effect. T2 is supposed to be a specialized role which this is. T2 resists would be nice for when you need to evac when discovered.
Just nerf the stront bay and PG/CPU to balance this out. It should be a tent instead of a fully defensible outpost. This would leave faction towers as the niche super towers that they are today.
I like most of this, but I'm worried that even partial T2 resists would be incredibly OP on towers, which already have a ton of EHP...
I am also partial to the idea of "pirate" towers as being "for enabling piracy", but that's just because that's really cute. |
IcyMidnight
Valkyries of Night
Of Sound Mind
3
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 19:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:the towers would be better served having the ability to be anchored off-celestial for the "pirate" feel, like having your own deepspace complex.
+1 to the original idea, but I also like the idea of being able to anchor them off-celestial! That way people looking for them would actually have to break out the scanner probes! Maybe that could be a difference between the "weak" and "strong"? |
Elly Artrald
Confidential Corp
20
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 19:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Anchoring them off-celestial would actually be really cool, especially since it would create some kind of utility for the fact that towers show up with combat scanners right now. It would effect W-space and K-space staging system "moon coverage" though, so that might be something to look out for. (I don't think moon coverage is a sensible mechanic, but breaking it might cause balance issues). |
Nariya Kentaya
Phoenix funds
1066
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 20:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
Elly Artrald wrote:Anchoring them off-celestial would actually be really cool, especially since it would create some kind of utility for the fact that towers show up with combat scanners right now. It would effect W-space and K-space staging system "moon coverage" though, so that might be something to look out for. (I don't think moon coverage is a sensible mechanic, but breaking it might cause balance issues).
the only balance issue it would effect is space-monopoly.
if people dont require a moon in high-end wormholes, then they can anchor a staging point ofr their high-level invasion in deep. since currently invading anything higher than a C3 without a staging POS is painful, regardless of what the defenders actually have.
as for null, SOV entities get enough space-control over systems they dont live in or near as is, in that respect i would say anchoring pirate-bases off-celestial would bring MORE balance to nullsec than now. |
Ali Aras
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
576
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 20:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
Alternate idea for some balance to that: a tower anchored off-celestial has dramatically lower hitpoints, s.t. it's *better* (from a staging perspective) to stage on-celestial, but you can manage far off.
Of course, at some point we get from "tweaking stats" to "tweaking pos code" and at that point it becomes more of a pie in the sky dream. Delicious pie though.
http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |