EVE Search - System Defence

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

System Defence

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Wild Rho	Posted - 2006.07.05 08:01:00 - [1] I remembered reading about the devs thinking of giving alliances that controlled systems the ability to put sentry guns on their gates. Personally I hate the idea as it would be a problem balancing it so they are an effective defence but not one that lets players lock off a system all to themselves. So I was thinking why not take a different approach. When an alliance has offical control over a system for say 1 month (change the time if you want) and has an outpost in the system they are able to have the local gates deploy warp disruption bubbles with a range of say 30 to 40kms. However unlike regular bubbles these ones can be set to allow alliance members + high standing pilots to fly unaffected by them. This gives the local defenders a chance to have some form of effective local defence in that enemies can't simply insta in and out of the system at will but it doesn't mean the defenders can simply leave the gate defence to "npc" weapon systems either. WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
James Duar	Posted - 2006.07.05 08:06:00 - [2] This is much more overpowered then a set of a destroyable sentry guns. The main reason to have sentry guns is that currently it's is BS that things like interceptors can fly into heavily guarded star systems pretty much with impunity unless you keep bubbles up 23/7. --- Encrypted Client Side Bookmarks! Raise YOUR voice to CCP. Let's end slow copy times and bookmark lag for good!
Sakura Nihil	Posted - 2006.07.05 09:02:00 - [3] Idk about this, I like the sentry gun approach because it would serve the purpose of stopping large fleets' movements in enemy territory, or slowing it down, whereas this idea completly stops them in their tracks. I do agree system defence needs boosting though, big time.
Marcus Aurelius	Posted - 2006.07.05 09:05:00 - [4] Originally by: James Duar This is much more overpowered then a set of a destroyable sentry guns. The main reason to have sentry guns is that currently it's is BS that things like interceptors can fly into heavily guarded star systems pretty much with impunity unless you keep bubbles up 23/7. I still don't get why that is BS tbh. Interceptors don't hurt your alliance, it's the larger ships that do. Who the hell cares that c you can't stop people from bringing in a bunch of frigs. Be aware, make everyone else aware and just frigging ignore them untill they bug you enough to chase em out. It's not hard, and losing larger more expensive ships to them is stupidity, not a lack of anchorable sentries. I like the idea of warp disruption zones around gates tho. It won't stop anything without direct player involvement as long as you make it possible to be temporarily disabled by shooting the stargate. That allows for balanced fleet combat in the area. I don;t think friendly ships should be excempt from the effects however. That's the price you pay for more security: slower travel.
Drizit	Posted - 2006.07.05 18:48:00 - [5] How about just having an 'I win' button against anyone coming into your system. Jeez, you already camp the gates to death, now you want it automated as well. --
Cathandra	Posted - 2006.07.05 19:33:00 - [6] Originally by: Wild Rho I remembered reading about the devs thinking of giving alliances that controlled systems the ability to put sentry guns on their gates. Personally I hate the idea as it would be a problem balancing it so they are an effective defence but not one that lets players lock off a system all to themselves. So I was thinking why not take a different approach. When an alliance has offical control over a system for say 1 month (change the time if you want) and has an outpost in the system they are able to have the local gates deploy warp disruption bubbles with a range of say 30 to 40kms. However unlike regular bubbles these ones can be set to allow alliance members + high standing pilots to fly unaffected by them. This gives the local defenders a chance to have some form of effective local defence in that enemies can't simply insta in and out of the system at will but it doesn't mean the defenders can simply leave the gate defence to "npc" weapon systems either. Signed. Better yet just make it so corps that are at war with the owners of a solarsystem aren't allowed to use warp drives in it PERIOD. A few disruption fields scattered around, manually, once in a while, just isn't good enough.
kirjava	Posted - 2006.07.05 19:54:00 - [7] Well, if the sentry guns are used, then fleet camps will be unnessacry (not to say peeps wont just do it anyway i suppose), and will be freed to do other things. I think that some smaller slliances will be able to stand up to huge offensive fleets, (read BoB) better. And will tempt more players into the small alliance and Outpost constuction in deep 0.0 space. So, /sighned, but not in the method that you have... sentry guns and some sort of hired NPC guards seems appealing to me....
Wild Rho	Posted - 2006.07.06 07:17:00 - [8] Personally I'm against any sort of automated defence. I think if you want to own a system you need to make the effort to keep it safe. No you won't always be able to stop people sneaking in, that's life in 0.0. The idea of the gate bubble is to make life a little more difficult for people to just wander in while the gates quiet and be able to insta back out again as they please. The whole 'letting friendlies pass unaffected' was just an idea to make them more desirable (as a price they could require a "maintenance cost per day" fee). If a corp/alliance wants to defend the system they still must have an active defence without having some npc based defence do the job for them, but now they have the advantage in that they can try and catch people trying to get in and take out people trying to leave. WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
Zarch AlDain	Posted - 2006.07.06 09:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Marcus Aurelius Originally by: James Duar This is much more overpowered then a set of a destroyable sentry guns. The main reason to have sentry guns is that currently it's is BS that things like interceptors can fly into heavily guarded star systems pretty much with impunity unless you keep bubbles up 23/7. I still don't get why that is BS tbh. Interceptors don't hurt your alliance, it's the larger ships that do. Who the hell cares that c you can't stop people from bringing in a bunch of frigs. Be aware, make everyone else aware and just frigging ignore them untill they bug you enough to chase em out. It's not hard, and losing larger more expensive ships to them is stupidity, not a lack of anchorable sentries. I like the idea of warp disruption zones around gates tho. It won't stop anything without direct player involvement as long as you make it possible to be temporarily disabled by shooting the stargate. That allows for balanced fleet combat in the area. I don;t think friendly ships should be excempt from the effects however. That's the price you pay for more security: slower travel. One intercepter in the system is enough that everyone has to stop ratting, abort their mining ops, etc etc. Why? Because one intercepter can warp into a mining op, pop one mining barge and leave again - or if someone is ratting in anything less than a battleship then the same can be done to them. Up the intercepter to something like a HAC and suddenly even the battleships need to stop ratting. Or what if the intercepter is a scout? Someone is ratting in their BS - the intercepter arrives in belt and locks them down and then 3 more hostiles enter from the next system and warp right too you. Yes lone raiders can be contained, track down, destroyed. We do it all the time, but they also cause disruption and/or get kills. Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation
Yoko Milan	Posted - 2006.07.06 12:28:00 - [10] There really does need to be some options for automatic system defense. This would allow smaller corps to set themselves up sovereignty and not have to keep the system manned 23/7, giving the smaller guys a chance against the bigger guys. Heck it might even help to cut down on blobbing. Another thing that would be nice is when you go to warp into a system there could be some warnings as to how the local sovereignty manages the system. Ok, this idea will be covered more in a thread of it's own.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.07.06 12:40:00 - [11] Zarch, and why should you be immune to interaction with other player entities, even in small groups? Yoko, and they'd be used far MORE by bigger alliances to free up even more striking forces for smashing smaller enemies. Automated defences won't help when 150 of them come calling, and they WILL stop you from distracting their blob with a raid.
Infinity Ziona	Posted - 2006.07.06 19:23:00 - [12] Thats cool but if they do that then we intruders get kill rights and you get sec hits if you kill us outside 'your' protected / sov systems.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.07.07 01:31:00 - [13] Originally by: Infinity Ziona Thats cool but if they do that then we intruders get kill rights and you get sec hits if you kill us outside 'your' protected / sov systems. Where the heck did that come from? It's not previously mentioned in this thread, and I really really don't like it. 0.0 is LAWLESS, and should have NO interface with killrights or security hits.
Tarron Sarek	Posted - 2006.07.07 01:48:00 - [14] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 07/07/2006 01:49:05 Hm, perhaps it's not 100% related to the OP's idea, but then again.. it's about system defence. For some time now I've thought about an option to have a 'Home-System', which could be fortified to some extend. Maybe by hiring some NPC mercenaries as guards, or with sentry guns. Or even something else. There'd be a number of possible options. It should help smaller corps stand their ground in 0.0. For them keeping or losing one system supposedly means a lot (as opposed to big corporations or alliances who wouldn't profit that much). With some backup they could better defend themselves against stronger enemies in at least one, or maybe their only system, without falling prey to the first stronger foe who happens to feel like 'pwning' them. I guess many small or even medium corps can't be online in sizeable numbers around-the-clock. So it also helps filling the gaps by adding some defending/security forces for the times nobody is online. Of course chokepoints would have to be eliminated or made impossible to claim as home system, because otherwise it would be abused to seal off regions. All in all I think such a mechanism would be a good feature. In the EVE world the chars dedicate their lives for the corporation or alliance and their space. No doubt. They don't have anything else to do. But in real life there's work, errands, family, etc. Some very limited additional and automated help could compensate a bit and allow people to achieve these goals (e.g. owning a system) without ruining their lives. Again, it would only be one system. just my 2 cents
Kannteir	Posted - 2006.07.07 01:52:00 - [15] Some of the veterans love the game the way it is, cause they have gotten great at it, while the newer guys want "easier" ways to play. The bubbles wont work for reasons already posted, and automated sentry units will mean anyone can get into 0.0 alone and lock off their own little system with enough ISK. We can't have that. I have yet to see any suggestion that helps system security, but like the guy from HUZZAH said, it needs help. __________________________________________
Dutarro	Posted - 2006.07.07 01:52:00 - [16] Asking for automated system defenses is really asking for increased security. However 0.0 is by definition insecure, thats why it's called 'security status'. Valuable resources are placed in insecure space because CCP believes in a risk/reward philosophy. Automated system defenses would reduce risk while leaving high-value rewards in place, and are therefore likely never to be implemented.
Tarron Sarek	Posted - 2006.07.07 02:07:00 - [17] Kannteir, you're deliberately exaggerating, right ? Otherwise I can't take seriously what you've written. Nobody could single-handedly fend off a BoB POS-killer-blob. As well as far from everybody wants an 'easy' game or to be able to lock off a system. So could you please stay constructive ?
Sniser	Posted - 2006.07.07 08:50:00 - [18] if We scale the system defense? For example if we got a POS or outpost in that system you could put more defense in primary than rather 5 jumps far away. Something like "high sec" /"low sec" for alliance space. More far away should be very little defense, only maybe to stop a bunch of frigates but if you go more deeply in territory alliance then gradually you need a large force
Infinity Ziona	Posted - 2006.07.07 09:20:00 - [19] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 07/07/2006 09:22:33 Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Infinity Ziona Thats cool but if they do that then we intruders get kill rights and you get sec hits if you kill us outside 'your' protected / sov systems. Where the heck did that come from? It's not previously mentioned in this thread, and I really really don't like it. 0.0 is LAWLESS, and should have NO interface with killrights or security hits. So basically if I go into 'YOUR' part in 0.0 I get killed by sentries just like .1 - .4? But you can come into MY part and kill me with no problems and no sentries? Seems fair... yeah right. Think again Maya. Basically if YOU cannot defend your systems with the freaking uber tools that you have (and which I dont have cause I'm in empire) then you dont get that system do you. Tough tittles.
TuRtLe HeAd	Posted - 2006.07.07 09:37:00 - [20] If the idea is ever to come in. it would have to be if member of soverign is attacked in sight they are attacked back buy the sentries. The guns wouldn't just simply Open Fire on someone. And Definately NO to Warp disruption. Thats Vast overpowerment.
Erotic Irony	Posted - 2006.07.07 10:08:00 - [21] I have to wonder about things like this in relation to EVE as a whole. Pre-Shiva, EVE was about pvp, ganks, gatecamps etc. It was pretty clear who was a pirate or how to be a scientist and fairly narrowly defined. By RMR we have killrights and a slightly more robust POS system and the rhetoric is about moving pvp away from gates. (I assume they meant camping complexes at DT) Now with these fabled improvements to system control we're back to trying to "secure" mostly unused regions at a few gates. Will these hypothetical bubbles or sentry guns even be destructable or have upkeep or is everything conjecture right now?
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.07.07 12:44:00 - [22] Infinity Ziona, I'm against fixed defences. I just don't get where you're dragging Empire mechanisms into 0.0 from. They have no place there.
Erotic Irony	Posted - 2006.07.07 13:21:00 - [23] Originally by: Maya Rkell I just don't get where you're dragging Empire mechanisms into 0.0 from. They have no place there. I think Infinity is implicitly asking for less of a gulf in gameplay or more parity between the logic of NPC empires and player ones. Is 0.0 meant to be absolutely FFA or does CCP envision some sophisticated interaction between say E.R.A and Amarr? Put another way, you shoot players in empire and pay for it with a security status loss to CONCORD but 0.0 because it lacks any kind of features like kill rights it feels empty in terms of support and content. I don't know what exactly these features or game logic would look like but I think the contract project is in someways an answer to Infinity's question. Surely you can agree that more legal, bureacratic or auditing tools for alliances, 0.0 and otherwise, would be a beneficial? Avon: For the love of all the is holy, do as the man says CCP.
Infinity Ziona	Posted - 2006.07.07 14:41:00 - [24] Edited by: Infinity Ziona on 07/07/2006 14:45:21 Originally by: Maya Rkell Infinity Ziona, I'm against fixed defences. I just don't get where you're dragging Empire mechanisms into 0.0 from. They have no place there. Gate guns are empire mechnisms. My point was if your going to 'claim' space and have empire mechinisms like gate guns in 'your' space then your killing should be restricted to 'your' space. Otherwise your pirating and there should be proper penalties for that.
Andreask14	Posted - 2006.07.07 14:46:00 - [25] Yes, the empire-tools of 0.0 alliances are very limited atm. Afterall, 0.0 alliances are meant to be player forged empires, yet they are very limited in their ways of acting as such. Sentry guns wouldnt even change this much. There need to be NPC Agents on 0.0 Stations that give out missions for the souvereign alliance. Sentries would be funny, but not all that important. Combat Boosters will add value to 0.0 regions, spouring conflict and creating new types of missions with new ressources. Just think, what do the NPC empire do all day ? Right, not much but camping gates and lurking in belts. Additionally they have the agents, and their BPO-Labs. All these feature will come to the 0.0 alliances in time, via next gen R&D for example. You can bulid stations already, now all that is needed is programable agents, to distribute tasks to alliance members efficiently. Lastly, once the first titan hits, things will get stirred up quite a hit. Thinkk of this: Right now, when your scouts find an enemy fleet, and you want to attack it, the enemy can just run off with instas and you wont be able to catch them at all, despite of most probably knowing where they will run to, if the conflict lasts for any length of time. With a titan and its jump portal, you just have it and your fleet jump 5 systems in front of the enemy¦s retreat course, where they wont have scouts by all propability, and hit the doomsday device once they enter, then your fleet mops up what is left. Fun. And a good way of having oranized 0.0 alliance actions. ________________________________________________ Just a quick reminder that "Local" and "Instas" will always be what they are.
Zarch AlDain	Posted - 2006.07.07 14:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Maya Rkell Zarch, and why should you be immune to interaction with other player entities, even in small groups? Yoko, and they'd be used far MORE by bigger alliances to free up even more striking forces for smashing smaller enemies. Automated defences won't help when 150 of them come calling, and they WILL stop you from distracting their blob with a raid. I shouldn't, but at the moment there is no 'home ground' advantage beyond POS to hide in and more friends to call on. I would like to be able to raid hostile systems and actually have it feel hostile - I would like to see there being hostile border zones between alliances. A strike into someone's home system should be a big deal rather than something anyone in an intercepter can do. Zarch AlDain The Blackwater Brigade Huzzah Federation

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.