| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
0
   |
Posted - 2015.03.25 17:31:49 -
[1] - Quote
I put this in the original Back Into Structure thread, but am moving it here since it is the better place for it.
I really like the main proposal. The only thing that I would like to add is to have structures like Gates and Observatories influence Local. If I were to go through the monumental effort of constructing a Stargate, I'd want it to only relay who is in the system to the people holding Sov... I'd also want to be able to configure gates to disallow usage depending on their status with the Sov-holding alliance. This way I could set it so that all Gates going deeper into a large territory of mine would try to disallow unfriendly pilots from getting further. Of course that could be overcome with a small amount of time hacking or Entosis linking the gate or gate network.
Then, Observatories (and Cov. Ops. possibly) could be used to hack into the Local feed to provide local to pilots in the same fleet or alliance. Actually, offensive observatories sounds like a logistical nightmare... So I think a better option would be to have system Stargates and Observatories hackable with the new Entosis Link. As long as POSs can't be anchored too closely to those two "sensitive" structures, I feel it could be a good mechanic. |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 20:25:10 -
[2] - Quote
Zappity wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Interesting points, thanks - however, if possible, we would like to open up as many structures as possible for people not participating in Sovereignty warfare. Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only. A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents. We may find out later that it may not be wise to do so for whatever design / technical reason, but we'd really like to keep the system as open-ended as possible for now until proven otherwise  . Absolutely! Please (please!) add a module that allows the owner to charge for gate use, i.e. a toll. This would lead to VERY interesting game play around creation and disruption of high speed toll ways which would be profitable for the owner but difficult to defend. Ideally you should not get a criminal flag for attacking these and charges should be modifiable by corp membership, alliance membership and standings. Red Frog or Push might be obvious builders but it could become quite emergent with someone like CODE investing in a Uedama bypass and then locking down the system tight for people who choose not to pay the toll!
Charging a toll was something I forgot to mention. I like the idea, but gates would need to be hackable.
On a similar note, I do not think that high sec gates should be destructible. High-sec griefing could be taken to a whole new level. |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 21:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Zappity wrote:Tessaline wrote:Charging a toll was something I forgot to mention. I like the idea, but gates would need to be hackable.
On a similar note, I do not think that high sec gates should be destructible. High-sec griefing could be taken to a whole new level. Imagine that - the hacker gets a suspect flag as soon as they start the hack (risk) but if they are successful it opens it up for free entry to everyone for x minutes (reward). Fantastic. It would have to be open to everyone because freighters don't have slots for hacking whatsits. Maybe add modules to increase the security of the gate so they are harder to hack, maxing out at nullsec Data site difficulty. I think you may be undershooting, by thinking the reward should be free passage for x minutes. I would go so far as to say the gate's income could instead be diverted, to a different corporation than the intended one. Corporate espionage.
Hacking the tolls into your account... So much win!
I meant that high sec NPC gates should be invulnerable (maybe not able to be captured too), because this would have severe impacts to new players not able to pay the tolls. Building your own gate to get around shipping choke points or a back-door into Jita could be destructible. |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 19:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hafwolf wrote:The idea of anchor able gates in any sec status is interesting.
An idea I like is a random one way gate. its a small gate that takes 2 minutes to setup. and when you jump you don't know where you will end up.
Aside from the one way part, these are called wormholes. |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 22:18:39 -
[5] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:
These cloaky camper concerns are just a bit one sided, it seems.
I see lots of material about how to drive them out, hunt them down, basically make them go away.
(If effective enough, remove any meaningful incentive to attempt that cloaking play style entirely)
In short, we seem to have produced stacks of solutions, where the cloaky camper loses.
While one side losing does resolve the issue, shouldn't we have more than just that one outcome?
In the interest of balance, how exactly are we creating opportunities for the cloaked hostile to win?
Seriously, we do want player driven content in sov null, besides the blob-fests that is.
You're right. How about this:
An Entosis link can lock someone down when using it, right? One ore more people can Entosis link the Observatory while using Combat Probes. This will allow the cloaky to be probed with very high difficulty. The cloaky can see the probes and check the Observatory. If no one is protecting the prober, free kill for cloaky! |
Tessaline
Tessaract Industries
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 08:05:19 -
[6] - Quote
I think with a backup sensor array you can make yourself harder to probe out. (ECCM too, but I don't think that works while cloaked.) |
| |
|