Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 22:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
I propose that a new type of bomb be created whose sole purpose is to destabilize wormholes.
The bombs would be fired just like existing bombs. They would have no effect on anything that is not a wormhole. They would either: Remove a fixed amount of mass from the wormhole's max mass. Remove a variable amount of mass from the wormhole's max mass. Reduce the wormhole's mass by a percentage of it's current mass allowance (not the maximum). Half-life decay.
Like all bombs, these would have enough volume to prohibit carrying too many (75m3). Like all bombs, they would be slow loading (135-160 secs depending on the launcher).
To make them challenging to deploy, the bombs could have a much smaller area of effect (perhaps only 1k instead of 15k). This would mean that you would have to be spot on with your accuracy, or risk wasting the bomb.
To raise the bar on who can fire them, these bombs could require a Bomb Launcher II (i.e. Bomb Deployment V, a 4x skill).
To limit overproduction, the bill of materials could be balanced in a way to make them cost prohibitive for generic circumstances. Blueprint originals may not be available, or may exist in very low numbers.
Other possible restrictions could be to confine their effectiveness only to the named side of the wormhole and say that it does nothing if fired at a K162. Or, perhaps there could be 2 different kinds of bombs; one that only affects K162's, and another that only affect named sides, which means that you would have to stock both types.
If implemented, I recognize that this proposal would greatly change the dynamic of w-space. I am dubious that this idea will get much traction at all, but I thought that it would have the best chance if it was introduced along with a buffet of ways to restrain it.
I welcome your feedback. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
228
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 22:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass. I'm two months old and what is this
|
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
123
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 22:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass.
Or a Battleship with a ton of armor platting. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
128
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 00:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
nah that's lame what would be cool is a special bomb that popped out on the other side of the wormhole i mean it'd be stupid as hell but cool |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 15:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass. Or a Battleship with a ton of armor platting. True, but there is an upper limit to the battleship (even with afterburners) option. If this bomb took away half of a wormhole's mass that could easily be billions of kg (an unfitted orca is 250 million kg). If it was a fixed or variable amount, it could conceivably replace several round trips with a single shot.
The exact amount of mass 'damage' inflicted is still up in the air; I don't know what would be fair, but the harder these are to make and use, the more 'damage' they should do to the wh.
You, know there's always the possibility to make another bomb that can extend the life of a wormhole, rejuvenating it's age and mass allowance.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
65
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 16:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
I have a serious question:
Why should there exist a mechanic to trivially close WH's?
I really think there should be significant risk involved in closing a WH. Sending through a large BS or HIC at least has some risk, where it might get stuck on the wrong side, might get surprise attacked, etc. Creating a SB bomb to close a WH from complete safety is just unacceptable!!
IMO, for most WH's, the game mechanics should highly encourage lots of BS or the use of capital ships to close a WH. It should not be something trivially done from the safety of a cloaking SB!!!!
|
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
123
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 17:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I have a serious question:
Why should there exist a mechanic to trivially close WH's?
I really think there should be significant risk involved in closing a WH. Sending through a large BS or HIC at least has some risk, where it might get stuck on the wrong side, might get surprise attacked, etc. Creating a SB bomb to close a WH from complete safety is just unacceptable!!
IMO, for most WH's, the game mechanics should highly encourage lots of BS or the use of capital ships to close a WH. It should not be something trivially done from the safety of a cloaking SB!!!!
This to be quite honest.
Course no WHS spacer worth his salt wouldn't miss "counting" and "calculating" mass on a WH when it comes to these things.
A "bomb" would take the risk....and the reward....away from such an hazardous environment as WHS.
The only bomb ill throw....is a shrapnel bomb. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Varion Galactic Tragedy.
231
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 20:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
WH dwellers already have WH crashing down to a science. 4 ships total with 1 jump and back for each and the WH is gone. This is the case with most WH's. Introducing this mechanic would just make WH life that much easier and lazy. I am not entirely opposed to it though. I have always thought that a gun of some kind that could fire a super dense mass round into a WH would be cool to collapse them. It even makes logical sense that this kind of tech would be developed. It would just make WH life a bit too easy. Support our boobies!-áLINKY! |
Malkev
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 21:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
100% do not support.
You want to collapse the hole, push ships through it. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 22:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
I agree with the sentiment that CCP should not introduce a device that auto kills wormholes. What I am proposing is much more limited. Remember, these devices would inflict any amount of mass 'damage' to the hole that CCP would deem appropriate. They could be hard to use, require specialized skills and equipment, take up a lot of cargo space and be expensive to build. They aren't system-wide smartbombs that eradicate all wormholes every time they cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you would not object if there was a WH-bomb that only took away a single kg of mass from a wormhole and cost twenty million ISK to buy.
If you don't object to that, then we're not talking about a principle, we're negotiating a price.
As it stands now, WH settlers know how to collapse their wormholes. From time to time miscalculations are made, but for the vast majority of cases, closing up a hole is done with simple math and good communication. It doesn't take long, and the risk isn't that severe. Closing a wormhole is an inconvenience more than it is a risk in 95% of all cases.
This is not just for carebearing. Think about the offensive uses of these bombs. Lure a large fleet into a WH and then rip it wide open so they can't all get back. Maybe track a mining expedition going into a wh and close off their exit. Come on, the idea of trapping people where they can't get out of has to appeal to some of you. |
|
Samillian
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
46
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 10:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I have a serious question:
Why should there exist a mechanic to trivially close WH's?
I really think there should be significant risk involved in closing a WH. Sending through a large BS or HIC at least has some risk, where it might get stuck on the wrong side, might get surprise attacked, etc. Creating a SB bomb to close a WH from complete safety is just unacceptable!!
IMO, for most WH's, the game mechanics should highly encourage lots of BS or the use of capital ships to close a WH. It should not be something trivially done from the safety of a cloaking SB!!!!
This |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 13:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
NO.
for the simple reason that closing wormholes involves having ships out in space which can be attacked. If you replace this with "wh bombahs" it will reduce the amount of conflict in W-space which would suck.
So like the other guys said. push ships through until it closes plx.
|
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 15:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Has anyone had a fight with people actively trying to close a wormhole, or been attacked while trying to close one? |
Malkev
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Has anyone had a fight with people actively trying to close a wormhole, or been attacked while trying to close one? Yes, to both.
D'Tell Annoh wrote:They could be hard to use, require specialized skills and equipment, take up a lot of cargo space and be expensive to build. So why would people use them instead of pushing ships through?
Your proposal removes all risk, both from being stranded and from being attacked, from collapsing. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 05:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
Malkev wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote:They could be hard to use, require specialized skills and equipment, take up a lot of cargo space and be expensive to build. So why would people use them instead of pushing ships through? Your proposal removes all risk, both from being stranded and from being attacked, from collapsing. People would make the calculation and weigh the cost versus the benefit. They get to make the decision.
It does not remove all risk.
Why should ships be the only way to close a wormhole? |
Malkev
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 16:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:It does not remove all risk. It does. A pack of these could insta pop any hole they wanted to.
Align WH with celestial, approach, drop bomb, warp off: no risk.
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
382
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 17:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Why should ships be the only way to close a wormhole?
The wormhole collapses due to mass being transferred through it. You're asking for a bomb that would close a wormhole without pushing mass through it.
The only way I can see this being even remotely balanced is by making the bombs so costly to produce that it would cost hundreds of millions to close the smallest wormholes. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 00:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Malkev wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote:It does not remove all risk. It does. A pack of these could insta pop any hole they wanted to. It is very difficult to know where to begin here. First off, I suggested a number of ways that these bombs could work, one of which was a half life method that would remove a fraction of the current total mass and therefore could never actually close it. If these bombs are expensive, then the diminishing return would mean that people would likely just use them to get a head start on closing a hole. This directly addresses your objection. Secondly, a pack of orcas can destroy a hole in the time it takes for the session change timer to run down. Warp them through, and you'll be able to warp back before your cloak wears off. Less than a minute, closed hole, guaranteed. Is this objectionable?
I can only guess the scenario you imagine is of someone dropping combat scanner probes the second local lights up, locating the wormhole and warping to it, then destroying an orca or two before their session timers wind down and they jump back through the hole?
This does not insta pop wormholes.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote:Why should ships be the only way to close a wormhole? The wormhole collapses due to mass being transferred through it. You're asking for a bomb that would close a wormhole without pushing mass through it. The wormholes that people "travel" through are really just colorful facades put over the exact same code that governs stargates. The thing that closes wormholes is a variable in a CCP database on a server in London. The reason why mass and time are currently the only ways to close a wormhole is because those are the only two things that affect that particular variable.
Now, as a practical matter, I do agree with you. Firing a bomb of any existing type at a wormhole will have no effect, because as you point out, these methods do not degrade wormholes. However, CCP can create items that would affect them. That is what I am proposing; a new way to affect these variables. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
72
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 04:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
The only way I could get behind this is if it randomized the collapse of a WH to the extent that after one of the bombs hits it, you have no indication whatsoever on how much mass it takes to close the WH. It could be a frigate, it could be an orca... and anyone using that WH does so at severe peril of it being a one-way trip.
Personally, I think that the there should be some more ambiguity in WH mechanics, so closing them is a bit more risky....
Closing a WH should NOT be a trivial exercise. |
Mike C
MicroFunks
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 09:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
So you want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes? No. |
|
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 16:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mike C wrote:So you want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes? No. I think you just read the title of the thread and posted without reading any of the comments.
No. No, I do not want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes. You're wrong. Read the comments.
|
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 17:48:00 -
[22] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Mike C wrote:So you want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes? No. I think you just read the title of the thread and posted without reading any of the comments. No. No, I do not want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes. You're wrong. Read the comments.
No I'm pretty sure he read the posts.
Its likely you who refuses to undestand or see reason.
WHS is just fine....all you need to do is wait it out...camp with SB's and space bombs...bubble it...or shove some armor plated battleships through.
If its a class 1.... shove some armor plated Tier 3's through.
Problem solved.
The greater majority of WHS ehtusiasts have it down to a science...while aparently you are troubled or taking issue with said mechanic.
We do not need an insta-I win button for closing WHS.
In its current rendition there is risk of the ship being sent through getting trapped... or the risk of not able to collapse WH due to it being odd numbered as opposed to even numbered of hops. It forces you to take a calculated risk.
With a "degrading bomb" you would just pop the bombs out cnotinously until the bloody thing collapses And if your making it a partial...that is an utter and complete waste of time.
We do not need to add yet an another item to the long list of items.
But i suspect you will fail to "get the message" for the 1000th time so why I bother posting is beyond even me. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 22:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:But i suspect you will fail to "get the message" for the 1000th time so why I bother posting is beyond even me. Troll harder, son.
I accepted from the beginning that this idea probably would not get any traction. Because I anticipated it, I tried to come up with some ways to reign the idea in and try to make it difficult to utilize. Perhaps these measures aren't enough, the idea of any device closing a wormhole raises skepticism. Is there something sacred about the current process of closing a wormhole?
I would like to say that for all of the flaws people see in this idea, realistically, you have to admit that its not an insta-win button.
I'll ask this again, because at this point this question is about the extent of the effort I'm willing to put into this.
Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK? |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 22:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:But i suspect you will fail to "get the message" for the 1000th time so why I bother posting is beyond even me. Troll harder, son. I accepted from the beginning that this idea probably would not get any traction. Because I anticipated it, I tried to come up with some ways to reign the idea in and try to make it difficult to utilize. Perhaps these measures aren't enough, the idea of any device closing a wormhole raises skepticism. Is there something sacred about the current process of closing a wormhole? I would like to say that for all of the flaws people see in this idea, realistically, you have to admit that its not an insta-win button. I'll ask this again, because at this point this question is about the extent of the effort I'm willing to put into this. Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?
why the #### Would I want to spend 20m a damn shot when its cheaper to get a battleship and do the job in the fraction of the time?
Id rather use that 20m to buy a shrapnel bomb. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 23:13:00 -
[25] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote: Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK? why the #### Would I want to spend 20m a damn shot when its cheaper to get a battleship and do the job in the fraction of the time? Id rather use that 20m to buy a shrapnel bomb. You didn't answer the question.
Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK? |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 23:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote: Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK? why the #### Would I want to spend 20m a damn shot when its cheaper to get a battleship and do the job in the fraction of the time? Id rather use that 20m to buy a shrapnel bomb. You didn't answer the question. Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?
Your just not getting it aren't you?
Let me break it down for you since your failing to keep up.
If theres no point to it or no need..then yes it is.
All somenoe would need to do is get a pile of them and lob them at WH's until they pop the damn thing.
A concept you REFUSE to understand or see with your blind nature of your foolish notion of an idea.
To top that off...its also ludicrously expesive and inefficent at best.
All youd need is a couple battleships with armor plates and youd get the job done quick like.
Risk is a major thing in WHS...you take that risk away....your breaking the "game"
But alas..I suspect your going to once again...ignore me. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 01:27:00 -
[27] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote:Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK? If theres no point to it or no need..then yes it is. All somenoe would need to do is get a pile of them and lob them at WH's until they pop the damn thing. A concept you REFUSE to understand or see with your blind nature of your foolish notion of an idea. To top that off...its also ludicrously expesive and inefficent at best. I believe that you have the foundation of the paradigm correct, but your conclusion is incorrect.
You are right in that it is ludicrously expensive and inefficient. Taking down a wormhole 1 kg at a time is silly, even if the bombs were free. Your average wormhole has about a billion available mass. Can you imagine how long it would take you to fire a billion of these at a hole? I did the math; using a Bomb Launcher II, and firing every 135 seconds without any pause it would take you over 4,280 years to close the hole. If you have 10,000 friends to help you, you could all bang it out in 156 days.
You and I agree on this so far. There are cheaper, faster and more efficient ways to degrade a wormhole. Yet for some reason you are reticent to take the next step and agree that a 1kg device would not break the game. Perhaps you view such an admission as a camel's nose under the tent? |
Drake Draconis
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
137
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 02:08:00 -
[28] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:D'Tell Annoh wrote:Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK? If theres no point to it or no need..then yes it is. All somenoe would need to do is get a pile of them and lob them at WH's until they pop the damn thing. A concept you REFUSE to understand or see with your blind nature of your foolish notion of an idea. To top that off...its also ludicrously expesive and inefficent at best. I believe that you have the foundation of the paradigm correct, but your conclusion is incorrect. You are right in that it is ludicrously expensive and inefficient. Taking down a wormhole 1 kg at a time is silly, even if the bombs were free. Your average wormhole has about a billion available mass. Can you imagine how long it would take you to fire a billion of these at a hole? I did the math; using a Bomb Launcher II, and firing every 135 seconds without any pause it would take you over 4,280 years to close the hole. If you have 10,000 friends to help you, you could all bang it out in 156 days. You and I agree on this so far. There are cheaper, faster and more efficient ways to degrade a wormhole. Yet for some reason you are reticent to take the next step and agree that a 1kg device would not break the game. Perhaps you view such an admission as a camel's nose under the tent?
YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.
turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.
If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.
If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.
I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.
Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.
The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.
To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it. Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down. Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best. |
D'Tell Annoh
4Sight Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 03:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
Drake Draconis wrote:YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.
turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.
If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.
If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.
I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.
Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.
The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.
To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it. Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down. Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best. Why are you so angry?
|
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 12:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
D'Tell Annoh wrote:Drake Draconis wrote:YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.
turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.
If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.
If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.
I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.
Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.
The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.
To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it. Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down. Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best. Why are you so angry? Why are u trolling your own thread ? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |