| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Drutort
   |
Posted - 2003.12.15 00:30:00 -
[61]
I like my idea still about the 0.0 stations not built as good as the empire and they have a 2.5-5km warp disruption area... and pirates or players could get modules that could overload the stargate to create more warp disruption, and that would req lots of power and few ships... and would increase that range up to maybe 5km+ to like 30km? i dont know... but that would work i guess same as this... only thing my idea does is req ships to be close to the stargate its self... so that those that jump in i guess could lock and fire at those that are overloading the gate...
but with these deplorable pirates can stay far far out with there guns and deployed warp disruptors...
support Idea: QuickInfo an alternative to ShowInfo
my MoBlog |
Blueblooded
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 00:39:00 -
[62]
 Quote:
This also fixes the issue were the gate campers just run away when anti-campers come to greet them. The Warp Disruptor has considerable value and is worth fighting to protect.
Would they realy be used at all if it disables the pirates option to run?
(all pirats I know off runs away as soon as the see a challanging threat...)
----------------------------------------
"The royal blood is blue, hence my name"
|
Claus
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 00:41:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Claus on 15/12/2003 00:51:47
Edited by: Claus on 15/12/2003 00:46:31
Quote:
Quote:
It comes back to the old "risk follows reward". If people have to risk going to low-sec for good ore then pirates need to risk ISK for camping.
Allowing pirates to treat EVE as a CS-clone does nothing for the players who mine and build -- and if those players leave then the game dies.
Like in nature, if the carvenours (sp?) become too effective then they die as they kill all of their prey. Pirating has to be quite hard for it to be a sustainable profession.
Why would someone risk 50m isk worth of deployable items + ships?
Because someone jumping in risks 110m of ship and modules. The campers face much less risk than the ships jumping in (unless it is a hunting party). Camping can not be riskless. Otherwise it will just be gangfest all around.
-------------
You have to go out of your mind from time to time to stay sane. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 00:55:00 -
[64]
Quote:
Edited by: Claus on 15/12/2003 00:51:47
Edited by: Claus on 15/12/2003 00:46:31
Quote:
Quote:
It comes back to the old "risk follows reward". If people have to risk going to low-sec for good ore then pirates need to risk ISK for camping.
Allowing pirates to treat EVE as a CS-clone does nothing for the players who mine and build -- and if those players leave then the game dies.
Like in nature, if the carvenours (sp?) become too effective then they die as they kill all of their prey. Pirating has to be quite hard for it to be a sustainable profession.
Why would someone risk 50m isk worth of deployable items + ships?
Because someone jumping in risks 110m of ship and modules. The campers face much less risk than the ships jumping in (unless it is a hunting party). Camping can not be riskless. Otherwise it will just be gangfest all around.
You're stating why you believe the modules should be expensive. That's not the question I was asking.
I'm asking what reason a pirate would have to risk 50m worth of deployable items on top of their ships?
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Morkt Drakt
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 01:10:00 -
[65]
It would be daft to make them expensive to fix a "litter" issue...
Just make them have an (anchoring) skill requirement, each deployed one taking up one skill level...
pirates will either have to un-anchor and retrieve, or destroy, those left behind/abandoned or run out of the ability to deploy anymore elsewhere.
(or a host of other ways this can be achieved via micro management methods)
Expensive jammers are far from ideal for either pirates or pirate hunters, corp wars whatever.
|
Sphalerite
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 02:06:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Sphalerite on 15/12/2003 02:07:52
Awsome plan. There are a couple of things I'd like to suggest...
-Make many different versions. anywhere from 5km, strength 1, 20 armor ones that you could buy for 200k to 60km, strength 4, 10,000 hp ones for 50M. This way newbie can actually use them to get lucky, and the rest of us don't have to put 30 around a gate to effectively hold it down.
-I'd make them drop people out of warp who warp in... this stops instajumpers and allows them to be used on travelers going both ways. Just have the dropped ships take their normal coming out of warp slowdown run. Gives another advantage to frigates too.
-Have them take a while to set up and take down. I'd tie the time to the size and strength of the unit, but I'd even have the basic one take 5-10 mins to do both. This at least helps with the "reel in the drones and go log" problem you get from some people when their alt a couple systems down sees something they can't handle coming.
-units tied to standings/war status. The current war system is something of a joke, but if it gets fixed, have units that only disrupt people you are at war with. this way they can be used in empire space w/o giving everybody a headache. I'd make the non-picky ones something that CONCORD kills on sight. Perhaps give them some amount of time to be active before the cops come depending on the sec status. or just limit them to .4 and below. I'm not picky... just don't want to see 50 cheapies laid by griefers making a 10 jump trip take an hour.
|
Stepping Razor
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 03:00:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Stepping Razor on 15/12/2003 03:02:19
Quote:
You're stating why you believe the modules should be expensive. That's not the question I was asking.
I'm asking what reason a pirate would have to risk 50m worth of deployable items on top of their ships?
Because they're into risk. At least that's what they'd have us believe.
BTW, for my money all I want if for them to ONLY work when anchored. So that they have to leave them behind or disable them in the face of an incoming combat force.
Same for us alliance. We either deploy and defend them, or run away and lose them.
Seems fair to me.
Razor
Originally by: Bonaventure Phaidon
CCP is the best at at least three things:
1. Really, really fun gameplay
2. Good forum presence
3. Inventing new and exciting ways to bring about in-game catacly |
Ryoko
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 03:25:00 -
[68]
If this costs more than 500k, and can't easily be scooped up to cargo, no one will use it. Says I.
|
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 04:12:00 -
[69]
If they make these deployables cost 50 million ... well that is just ridiculous. TBH the proper way to do it is to have different levels of the module.
The highest one, which disrupts a field of say 50km radius, would cost something like 15M. The low-end module, costing something like 150 - 500k, would have a radius of 10km.
If the thing costs 50M to buy ... well think of it, who is stupid enough to do it? Nobody would use the item.
|
Kaylon Syi
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 04:24:00 -
[70]
Quote:
This is a great idea. Make sure pirates need to shell out mega bling cheddar to use them.
LoL that saying just rocks btw. And I agree... 3-5 mil per unit. Why should Pirates and Pirates hunters ( the only difference is from whom you collect your bounties ) have No risk in Blockading? There is risk everywhere else in this game. Same goes for Alliances that will use this to choke territory.
|
ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 04:33:00 -
[71]
The ship that anchors the disruption field should have to remain inside the field at all times. Departure of the anchoring ship via - destruction, leaving the field, jumping, should deactivate the field.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 04:43:00 -
[72]
Quote:
Quote:
This is a great idea. Make sure pirates need to shell out mega bling cheddar to use them.
LoL that saying just rocks btw. And I agree... 3-5 mil per unit. Why should Pirates and Pirates hunters ( the only difference is from whom you collect your bounties ) have No risk in Blockading? There is risk everywhere else in this game. Same goes for Alliances that will use this to choke territory.
Why?
Because Phased Plasma Large ammo only costs costs about 40 isk per round.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Lockheed
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 05:21:00 -
[73]
ok.....that is case 1 solved.
Case 2?
Ab's
mwd's being nerfed?
Pls leave them alone. make the disruptors slow the ships to the same speeds that all go through the same speed like being "TOWED" in to jump like a tractor beam pulling it in.
Dont nerf them, its the carebears only protection. the super cap drain on dual mwd's for the speed is rediculas. you are already takin enough risk just at running the duals.
It can be implemented into the game as techs have noticed the gates breaking down faster from ships bouncing off or colliding with the gates b4 they jump.
________________
On a pale horse. |
Johnson McCrae
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 05:22:00 -
[74]
The Deployables will cost between 5-10mil, will be limited on how CLOSE you can park them near a gate/station, so their fields dont overlap too much, which means you need 6 (4 on the x and 2 on the Z axis coords) around the gate to cover all approaches.
This way, their not cheap enough to be just throw-aways. Whether they affect the ones who laid them is still up for grabs. BUT, they must be anchored to function.
They can be destroyed. Which means a BS that jumps in can vape one. The problem with that is as soon as the BS starts to lock, (which may take up to 30 seconds), their JIP cloak drops, allowing the campers to start locking too. Then it becomes a race for the BS to kill the disruptor so it can warp, and the rats to kill the BS.
It ain't over till the fat lady falls on ya!
[ 2004.10.09 02:50:23 ] (combat) Your 425mm Compressed Coil Gun I perfectly strikes Guardian Sentry, wrecking for 747.3 damage.
|
Dragonday
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 05:53:00 -
[75]
Gee, I notice all the Player Killers think the new patch just JIM DANDY. What about the rest of us??? Those that will be their intended victoms. What nice new things are you going to do for us??? It sounds to me like your catering twards them than the rest of us. We out number them. but they get things that make them be BETTER PLAYER KILLERS.
------------------------------------------
Hurm (?) (!) |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 06:04:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 15/12/2003 06:04:40
Quote:
The Deployables will cost between 5-10mil, will be limited on how CLOSE you can park them near a gate/station, so their fields dont overlap too much, which means you need 6 (4 on the x and 2 on the Z axis coords) around the gate to cover all approaches.
This way, their not cheap enough to be just throw-aways. Whether they affect the ones who laid them is still up for grabs. BUT, they must be anchored to function.
They can be destroyed. Which means a BS that jumps in can vape one. The problem with that is as soon as the BS starts to lock, (which may take up to 30 seconds), their JIP cloak drops, allowing the campers to start locking too. Then it becomes a race for the BS to kill the disruptor so it can warp, and the rats to kill the BS.
1) Linkage for all these confirmed facts?
2) Reason why someone would invest 30m-60m isk over a 100k frigate + warp scrambler + webifier and using shoot -> loot -> scoot tactics whereever possible?
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Novo DuPont
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 06:30:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Novo DuPont on 15/12/2003 06:33:42
Very simple reasons for why using these devices instead of frigates:
Corps can make ships concentrated for combat instead of catching ships and frigates would not be able to warp scramble ships for long periods in high traffic areas.
These devices are:
ALWAYS ON and need no external power source or activation.
Have NO LIMIT to the number of ships they can warp disrupt at a time.
DO NOT need any target locking to disrupt a ship therefore ECM devices for breaking locks won't work on them.
MANY MANY more reasons as well but I think you kinda get the idea.
If a corp wanst to completely lock down a gate to ALL traffic then they need these devices.
OHH and btw Jash if would take the time to come to the test server to try out these devices you wouldn't need lazy linkages.
"To succeed greatly one must sacrifice greatly"
|
Tek Na'Shakk
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 07:18:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Tek Na'Shakk on 15/12/2003 07:20:26
This sounds nice, now you realy can lock down bottleneck systems and make sure no other ships will be able to passage.
Will it be possible to create very long corridors with Anchorable Warp Disruptors and anchorable Sentry guns, making it impossible to travel and shoot down the AWD?
The only thing missing now is anchorable webbifiers and anchorable ecm.
"The birth of bump-pirates is coming..."
|
Eltigre
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 07:22:00 -
[79]
WHat a terrifying thought... that someone at CCP actually thought of this one... Warp Disruptor Gizmo rather than carte-blanc warp disruption around all gates... Kudos to CCP, IF they can actually do this... otherwise, there'd be no point to travelling outside 0.3- systems.
Suggestion :: Pirates or those who actually deploy and use Warp Disruptors might have more of an incentive to remain and defend them if the Warp Disruptors were to self-destruct whenever the player or corp that deployed them wasn't within say 60 km of the deploy point for longer than say 60 secs - just a thought...
Suggestion :: Make it possible for peole to steal Warp Disruptors - seeing how they're supposed to tbe valuable and expensive it might be interesting if people could steal them rather than needing to destroy them in order to deactivate their effects.
SWEET routinely sells BPC's in Sing Laison and Essence Regions. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 07:22:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 15/12/2003 07:26:49
Quote:
Edited by: Novo DuPont on 15/12/2003 06:33:42
Very simple reasons for why using these devices instead of frigates:
Corps can make ships concentrated for combat instead of catching ships and frigates would not be able to warp scramble ships for long periods in high traffic areas.
These devices are:
ALWAYS ON and need no external power source or activation.
Have NO LIMIT to the number of ships they can warp disrupt at a time.
DO NOT need any target locking to disrupt a ship therefore ECM devices for breaking locks won't work on them.
MANY MANY more reasons as well but I think you kinda get the idea.
If a corp wanst to completely lock down a gate to ALL traffic then they need these devices.
Let's look at it from a risk/profit perspective for a minute, okay?
Scenario 1:
Deployable warp disruptors: 10m each, 6 to cover a gate.
Vigil: 100k each, 3 to handle webify duty
Rupture: 7m each, 3 for 'encouraging' cooperation.
Tempest: 100m each, 1 optional for heavy backup.
Total potential loss on the very 1st encounter: 181.3m from being trapped in their own scramble zone.
Potential profit: Unknown and unknowable
Scenario 2:
Vigil: 100k, 3 to handle initial webify/scramble duty
Rupture: 7m, 3 to pick up webify/scramble duty after initial catch and pound target.
Tempest: 100m, 1 to speed up kills
Total potential loss on the very 1st encounter: 131.3m provided everyone is unable to flee with nothing to stop them from doing so.
Total potential profit: Unknown and unknowable
From a risk analysis standpoint, why would a pirate bother to add 50m isk worth of potential loss + increase the chances of losing more? Alliances have reasons to completely lock down a gate to ALL traffic. Pirates do so only as long as it's profitable and necessary.
With a universe full of people that insist on AFK autopiloting, travelling through dangerous areas with no escorts in defenseless ships and using other overly complicated methods to commit suicide to provide others profit through their destruction, raising the price tag on piracy is not the best motivator to use.
Piracy should be risky, no argument. The problem people keep missing is the risk has to come from themselves, the players, not price tags. Otherwise you encourage them to use less sophisticated, most cost effective methods:
Phased Plasma Large @ 40 isk per.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
what
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 07:38:00 -
[81]
Will all the dumb people that keep insisting that this is is only advantageous to pirates shut up until they actually fight PvP that is not pirate or anti-pirate based.
Corps and alliances will use them as well.
Seriously, half this thread is whether or not this should hurt or reward pirates as the exclusive point of view. Some of you guys really need to spend more time thinking about the larger picture and posting only until you have something worth saying.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 08:05:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Jash Illian on 15/12/2003 08:05:48
Quote:
Will all the dumb people that keep insisting that this is is only advantageous to pirates shut up until they actually fight PvP that is not pirate or anti-pirate based.
Corps and alliances will use them as well.
Seriously, half this thread is whether or not this should hurt or reward pirates as the exclusive point of view. Some of you guys really need to spend more time thinking about the larger picture and posting only until you have something worth saying.
Pretty much everyone that participates in PvP will take a tactic or strategy, unfortunately even the questionable ones sometimes, that a pirate player uses for their own good if it's effective. Often to greater effect.
But I don't think some people can get to the larger picture. Getting killed by pirates is the larger picture for them because those are the only people they perceive as having a motive to involve them in PvP. So PvP for alliances and corps never factors in.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
MyZteRio
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 08:05:00 -
[83]
Hmm i might still change my one month subscription to 6 months again.
This takes away my fear of traveling taking away the fun to play.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A virtual Life takes 1/2 a lifetime, if it's worth living. |
Kaylon Syi
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 08:39:00 -
[84]
Quote:
Will all the dumb people that keep insisting that this is is only advantageous to pirates shut up until they actually fight PvP that is not pirate or anti-pirate based.
Corps and alliances will use them as well.
Seriously, half this thread is whether or not this should hurt or reward pirates as the exclusive point of view. Some of you guys really need to spend more time thinking about the larger picture and posting only until you have something worth saying.
The bigger picture does include pirates. What this game needed is a way for pirates to have fun and to give people the ability to fight back. Pirates are the unknown viable in this game and thus far I have yet to meet a real pirate in this game. Now we shall see a whole genre revolve around this trade.
Since these Items will cost a lot, Pirates might just start pirateing each other for them. I can see wings of blackbirds and caracals warp into a system to try to steal this item later when hacking is in the game. I mean ... if you Camp for expanders and loot dropping out of the destroyed ship... it stands to reason that you will also want to take someones warp scramblers of equal or greater value.
Truely now Cartels can be formed and you see what was before Griefing ( in the name of Piracy ) become its own trade that can be profitable and give them something to be a challenge.
Kudos to CCP. PvP just got interesting ... and somewhat more fair to everyone.
|
Novo DuPont
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 09:56:00 -
[85]
Ok Jash let me simplfy it some more since the idea is somehow to complex to grasp.
Frigates only have the power and ability to scramble one target at a time.
That means in order to get a bunch of ships passing through a area you need to have ALOT of ships.
These device have NO LIMIT to the number of ships they can earp scramble. That means if a group knows there is certain await of ships camping a gate they just mass rush it and most will get through
UNDERSTAND?
"To succeed greatly one must sacrifice greatly"
|
Cao Cao
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 09:57:00 -
[86]
If these things really cost 5-10 million each, and you need 6 of them to lock down a stargate ...
I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I will say that you won't find me using one. Just plain stupid.
|
VoxDei
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 10:05:00 -
[87]
I'm wondering if they have a warp scramble strength. Can you escape using warp-core stabilisers?
|
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 10:15:00 -
[88]
First of all this:
Quote:
Some of you guys really need to spend more time thinking about the larger picture and posting only until you have something worth saying.
I simply hate people who come up here and try to tell others what to say or not to say.
You people DO NOT back up your point by trying to make others look stupid or by trying to tell them what/when they should post!
To topic:
Making them superexpensive is definately not the solution. Expensive, yes, but not superexpensive. I¦m thinking somewhere around 2 million a piece so a group of campers will have to spend around 12 million isk to effectively block a gate. A reasonable price IMO and still low enough to actually provide a reason to use them.
If you make them too expensive nobody will use them, simple as that.
Mai's Idealog |
FileCop AI
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 10:44:00 -
[89]
uhh, question. If these things disrupt warp in say - 30km around the gates. You jump in at 12km from the gate. You have to travel 18 km before you warp? Now that's instant death...
FileCop AI of MASS
Co-CEO |
Johnson McCrae
|
Posted - 2003.12.15 10:57:00 -
[90]
Quote:
1) Linkage for all these confirmed facts?
2) Reason why someone would invest 30m-60m isk over a 100k frigate + warp scrambler + webifier and using shoot -> loot -> scoot tactics whereever possible?
Sorry dude, source classified.
It ain't over till the fat lady falls on ya!
[ 2004.10.09 02:50:23 ] (combat) Your 425mm Compressed Coil Gun I perfectly strikes Guardian Sentry, wrecking for 747.3 damage.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |