| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Belzavior
   |
Posted - 2004.02.18 21:07:00 -
[1]
As most know by now, with the shiva patch we'll be getting player owned structures. Basically a control tower that provides CPU and Powercore to surrounding structures so that they can operate.
Obviously these should be expensive to produce. (thinking billions).
What bugged me greatly in the article was the mentioning of limiting factors. Such as cpu of the control towers so that you can't have a billioin turrets.
My problem is then of course that no matter what your "city" in space is going to be limited. I would rather have a system where if I keep investing cash into it I could make this city the equivilant of fort nox. If you run out of say cpu in your control tower you'ld have to buy say another 100m System core to give you alot more cpu to work with, in witch you could use to help power more turrets, modules, etc...
It should be viable to make a stronghold that would take the combined force of say an alliance or two if enough isk was invested (say 100b).
I'm not saying 1b invested into an outpost should be able to single handedly kill 1b worth of battleships attacking it. But perhaps a 10b outpost should be able to. This will give cities a definate str value and opposing forces will have to scout it out and make various plans based on the setup of the city.
|
BobGhengisKhan
|
Posted - 2004.02.18 21:08:00 -
[2]
It would be ******* lame if all you had to do to stop piracy was to mine for months. We'd all quit in boredom if you could deploy 30,000 sentry guns.
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.18 21:17:00 -
[3]
It's even more lame if you lose such an investment because a small handfull of aggressors attacked while your corp was all at work. If you have 15b or so wrapped into a city then yah it should take significant amount of cordination and fire power in order to do so. I'm not saying 1b in station = 1b worth of battleships, but more like 5b in station investment can fend off 1b worth of warships. Perhaps the ratio would be more like 10-1 if the attacking force was very skilled and acted like a cohesive unit.
And how would haveing such a strong fortress = safety for pirates? You might be safe withen it's limits but surely not once you leave to go mine,trade and other such things.
|
Daniel Jackson
|
Posted - 2004.02.18 22:41:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Daniel Jackson on 18/02/2004 22:42:44
i think what they put in new patch its gonna be super alsum
i cant wate :) 
That was WAY too many smilies. -Elereth
Caldari will once again rise above the gallente and take back Caldari prime!
Image done by Denrace |
Mephorios
|
Posted - 2004.02.18 23:02:00 -
[5]
It would make sense if the bases where harder to assault on a pure ratio bases. If you look at a old sieges on cities, the cities usually had the upper hand due to their MASSIVE investment of resources into walls, turrets, trenchs, etc. Seems to me that if a player invests, say a billion isk into turret and a billion into a battleship, or whatever, that the stationary object would have the advantage. But, just whip out your trebuchet and have at the turrets if you think that's cheap. Equip some long range missles, and bombard the station/sentries from a long ways off. I would not be happy if the deployables had godly defenses, since what fun would that be to come back to a base without having something to fix? Just make it about on a cost per cost ration with a bs, i suppose.
|
Durandal
|
Posted - 2004.02.18 23:25:00 -
[6]
Dunno if I read it right, but if you want to create a city and have millions of sentry guns and are willing to invest billions in your city, why not have more than one control tower? Can their spheres of influence, to which they provide cpu, overlap?
If so could have one of each races control tower in diamond formation with many sentry guns. Theres your city  . No idea if it would work tho 
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!"
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.18 23:56:00 -
[7]
Well IMO 1 billion investment in to a so called city, shouldn't be able to defend on it's own a raid of 1 billion worth of battle ships. Around 8 apocs + equipment.
Biggest reason is because of the player factor. 8 Players bring to the table lots of skill investment also.
Its on the same subject as to why 1 apoc shouldn't be able to kill off 200 frigs even though they are roughly of equal value.
I'm not expecting it to be 30,000 sentries like some are sarcasticly saying, but rather allow for sentries to have a wide variety of types as to allow more efficient system usage. Example would be say a Siege Laser Sentry- Preffered target: Battleships and titans. Range 120km. Dmg = 7-8 Tachyons. Cost 100,000,000. Alot of Dmg but very very expensive. Is it worth the 100m price tag for dmg output? Not really cuz 100m worth of Tachs is like 50 Tachyons.
Anyhow I guess people get the basic drift.
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 00:32:00 -
[8]
Have it occured to you that CCP wants megacorporations with a firm 24/7 presence but you can't have that with all this laaaaaaaaaaaaaag in fleet battles, now can you?
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 00:41:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Belzavior on 19/02/2004 00:45:54
I would hope that ccp would be smart enough to realize that's a very unrealistic goal for most corps to obtain. I'm in a 100+ member corp and at later hours there is usually only a couple people on.
Take shadowbane. A big failure of their siege system during beta was the midnight raids against cities. NPC guards that you could hire were a joke. Eventually they ended up makeing it so that defenders could set the time for when the siege would take place by means of the bane circle. Now would your really like to see this system in place?
I'ld rather have NPC defence that while costly was still effective and people could attack at anytime.
|
Skillz
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 00:43:00 -
[10]
Survival of the fittest.
Keep on flaming, lamers.
|
|
|
Amin
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 00:52:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Amin on 19/02/2004 00:59:16
Its not really a question about the number of sentry guns your allowed to deploy, but more to the point how hard it is to take over?
Unlike with capturable stations where its quite possible for one alliance to control stations during GMT hours and another to control it during EST hours. Nothing is actually destroyed so you haven't actually lost an investment, yes, you have lost access to the stations facilities but u can always capture it back.
With POS if your base gets attacked when all your members are lseeping/working then your stand a good chance of losing your massive investment forever. Correct me if im wrong but that could make alot of ppl just quit.
As said above, attacks should be handled like sieges on cities. When station is not protected by human players it will rely heavily on the automated defenses, these defenses should require resources to repair/maintain. Minerals could be used to repair damage structures, but more importantly some kind of fuel should be needed to power the stations defenses.
For example, rocket fuel (trade good) will be needed to maintain the weapon platforms/shields. If the base gets assualted the station defenses will activate and start to consume the rocket fuel. The base owners should have a stockpile of this fuel that the defenses can run on. It order to maintain the defenses running, regular supplies of this fuel must arrive at the base. This stops alliances from building uber-unpenetrable bases at protect themselves forever. Also, this ties into the siege idea, whereby attackers must keep all supply cut off to the station until runs out and can then be captured.
Of course, it should be proportional, if 100 bs attack a base (Lag anyone  ) they should be able to take a base with ease.
Drink StarsiÖ Relation Co-ordinator
Caldari State Citizen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 01:00:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Belzavior on 19/02/2004 01:02:00
Exactly. Losing a billion isk out post because of a midnight raid of 4-5 ships because the control tower doesn't have quite enough cpu for those extra turrets, is something that will just make people quit.
The current station thing is much like DAoC keeps. They are almost meant to be frequently change owners. If you lose one, its not that big of a deal because it wasn't an investment in the first place.
|
Absurd
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 03:15:00 -
[13]
You can have 1000 sentry guns protecting your POS but all peaple need to do is take out the sentry guns and then the station, even take the station from far away outside sentry guns range.
So in the end it doesnt matter since if you arent protecting your station you will loose it.
|
Unicode
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 03:17:00 -
[14]
Why would u have sentry so far from ur station that they cant protect them? Thts doesnt make sense 
Quote of the Week:
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds."
Franklin D. Roosevelt |
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 03:48:00 -
[15]
Simple, player owned sentry guns have different ranges based on type. The longest range sentry should have a range greater than the maximum targeting range of ships to prevent people trying to plink away at the defenses with lucky shots.
|
Kalast Raven
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 10:04:00 -
[16]
longer than the maximum targeting range of a ship? there is no such possibility, unless the range of the sentry gun maxes out its grid. A ship's range can be continously increased by sensor boosters and links to a ludicrous point. A prepared fleet WILL be able to lay siege to these POS if the defenders arent about. Which is a good thing in a way. Unfortunately due to this, how likely will someone see this setting up an outpost as a sound investment? Depends on the cost in isk and cost in player effort. My Prediction : Only the largest of Megacorps will be well advised to undertake these structures. Other corps will most likely lose more than they bargained for.
-------
K. Raven
|
Namelesz
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 10:12:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Namelesz on 19/02/2004 10:14:24
I like the "seige" idea, where you must stop convoys to and from the player-owned structures in order to weaken it. This would make the most sense and have a good bit of role-playing to it as well. You could have your regular shipments come in and out, but if your attackers start bustin up the convoys then your corpmates/friends have to try to do it themselves in their own indys. Imagine an Iteron Pilot sneaking by the battleships with ABs on trying like crazy to dock.
This also could provide even more way for players to control the market much more, with buy and sell orders for trade goods necessary for keeping your station/city running and defended. Maybe use all the extra Homeless/Slaves/marines/science grads as personel which you have to keep stocked as well. And if courier missions get fixed you could also hire players outside your corp/alliance to bring these things to you as well. The possibilities are almost limitless, just gotta hope the lag issues don't kill this thing before it really gets off the ground.
Edit : also one of the major supplies one would need is ammo to keep your sentry guns shooting. If you have no ammo then guns stop firing. Or if they are energy then they need cap or they'd fire forever which is unrealistic.
-Namelesz
"I never run away. I merely advance in the opposite direction." -Judicator
"She was so dumb, the smartest thing to ever come out of her mouth was my *****." |
FZappa
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 11:07:00 -
[18]
if the sentry range will be booster to 200-300km
then you can have your fort nox , otherwise its pretty
easy sitting out of sentry range and blowing it up ?
-------------------------
|
Chade Malloy
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 12:04:00 -
[19]
 Quote:
... otherwise its pretty
easy sitting out of sentry range and blowing it up ?
Well, depends on HOW you want to blow it up. I am pretty sure that player owned sentries will work in another way that standard gate-sentries. What if they just fire barrages of Defender-Missiles at incoming torpedos/cruises, so that you HAVE to move within turret-range to actually do some damage?
...just a thought, after i have seen the artwork of the Pow-sentries.
Patience wins. |
Unicode
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 13:12:00 -
[20]
I like the sound of the "siege" idea at least u dont lose all your corps investment cos your asleep. 
Anyone know if its gona work like this?
Quote of the Week:
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds."
Franklin D. Roosevelt |
|
|
Killgorde
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 13:41:00 -
[21]
I seem to remember reading somewhere that unlike the recently introduced stations POS would not be conquerable/destroyable - only that they were vulnerable to attack during the initial construction phase.
A large team putting in months of effort (allegedly, if the hints are to be believed) to create a station only for a fleet to fly in and take it over in one massive attack just doesnt stack up.
Given that these POS will need to be developed/extended (more effort), and corps residing in them would wish their valuables (particularly BS and high cost bp) secure, making them open to take-over/destruction would scare most people off building them in the first place - if there were the remotest possibility their assets within could be acquired and as a result the corp effectively financially destroyed.
Killgorde
CEO - Cutting Edge Incorporated
"I thought I saw a light at the end of the tunnel but it turned out to be some bastard with a torch in one hand and a ****load more work for me in the other" |
Belzavior
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 15:03:00 -
[22]
IF that is the case I'm really not looking forward to these. If they are made invincible then it would be impossible to acquire territory. As once someone gets their City constructed they'll have a permanent foothold in that region and thats just not right.
They should not be a pushover though. Only very well organized fleets should have the slightest chance of doing seriouse harm.
As to it being worth the effort, supposedly the only way to produce tech 3 is through these stations. So I'm certain alot of people will be willing to build them.
|
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2004.02.19 15:21:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Xavier Arron on 19/02/2004 15:25:56
Ok this is a copy of another post of mine, which I posted after seeing the part on Shiva in the new newsletter. This was posted as a comment to hellmar.
----------------------------------
à
I just have a few questions;
1) Since the control tower supplies CPU and power, can we just anchor another control tower within the same area to provide CPU / power and thus create larger bases?
2) From the flash demo I noticed the use of the terms deploy x component, tow x component. Once deployed / towed into place can they be repackaged and reused somewhere else?
3) How much will each of these components cost approximately, surely no more than a level 2 BS each?
4) Can we deploy these bases anywhere in space, i.e. create secret bases for others to find, or can they only be deployed around moons / planets?
The newsletter is a great idea... Btw the art work looks fantastic, and all the new content sounds great. Looking forward to Shiva!!!
------------------------------------
The reason I asked those questions is because I was thinking about a lot of the same issues raised by others in this post.
1) If we could add extra control towers, it would allow large bases / cities to be built with stronger defences. Another idea is to allow friendly corps to build next to each which would allow for combining of defences and mutual protection. Perhaps this could be set through the standings system, (i.e. form an alliance) or some kind of base linking option so that the defence turrets protect both bases.
2) IÆm guessing from all the dev posts and the flash animation that all the station components will be either deployable or tow-able. Therefore at worst before logging a corp could pack up and warp/tow to a point in space and then log. I believe that titan IndyÆs are coming in so I'm not sure what structures will pack into a titan and which ones will be towed.
3) I understand what a lot of peeps are saying about not being on 24/7 losing their investment. I believe that the player owned stations should be an obtainable goal by most players, e.g. each component should at most cost that of a level 2 BS. A full set of station components would therefore still represent a significant investment.
4) In the flash demo, a beacon has to be deployed first. Does this therefore show up on the scanners of all players in the system or just the corpÆs? And can we deploy these stations anywhere or only in / around planets and moons? If we could deploy these stations in deep space, then at least the stations would have to be found first, and this would offer at some protection. I like the idea of setting up multiple stations perhaps having a control tower with four research stations hidden deep in space. There would be no need for heavy defences if very few people new of the station, but if someone did manage to find it, they could be able to launch a raid and steal the blueprints.
I hope within the next few months that more information will be released by the devÆs on exactly how all this will work.
Keep up the good work, and looking forward to Shiva!!!
|
Fillmeup
|
Posted - 2004.02.20 03:13:00 -
[24]
Flash Demo? Where can I have a look at that .... ?
Thanks
|
Jaris Starforge
|
Posted - 2004.02.20 03:25:00 -
[25]
the problem of pirats warping far away and bombarding the controll tower in order to disable the defenses by destroying it is solved by 2 things
1 one module is a ashield genereator and you can have more than one to deploy if you wish offering protection to all surounding structures and friendly ship enermy ships and wepons cant pas this barrier till its gone
2 the range of the sentry guns is very long as its a larger version of the races standard for example the amarrs tachyon turret has a range of 200km, but its power consumption is very large so you wont have many of those so you will probaably just use laser turrets or missile launchers all which have a range of 150km. basicaly im saying that in order for someone to doa long range attack against your city you will need to be in range of the big guns and you still have to take out the shields.
not easy to take a city out is it  finally a challenge is looming on the horizon ill post when and if i find a good way of looting theses citys
also id advise not destroying them just take out its defenses loot it then come back later to re loot it again thats REAL PIRATING imagine it the PIRAT buckaneers raid the 0.0 city again hahaha me artys
|
Fantomas
|
Posted - 2004.02.20 04:56:00 -
[26]
sadly enough so called "pirates" these days are just masked griefers.
A loss of that magnitude would be devastating to the involved corporations.
Take-overs should be difficult but destruction of the base should be damn near impossible.
Looking forward to this feature, but I'm sure CCP will unleash a set of rules on these that will not make everyone happy.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |