Mire Stoude
Cash Money Brothers
R0ADKILL
   |
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:04:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mire Stoude on 23/08/2008 19:06:36
Edited by: Mire Stoude on 23/08/2008 19:05:35
I have not read through the whole posts, so forgive me if this has been said already.
I personally like how sov is challenged in faction warfare. If you took a similar approach I think it would be a solid start. Instead of controlling gates, there should be bunkers or control outposts at every planet.
Bunkers
1. These bunkers would NOT be guarded by NPC's (unless in npc sov'd systems, I guess).
2. Bunkers would be very much like an immobile ship in space.
- 2a. Bunkers can be boarded (right click, board).'
2b. Bunkers would have a relatively small amount of HP (500k to 1 million HP should be fine).*
2c. Bunkers have their own cargo hold.
2d. Bunkers have a set number of 'slots' that certain POS modules can be connected.
2e. Bunkers do not require POS fuel.
2f. Bunkers do not have shields that defenders can hide behind.
3. Control over a bunker can be changed with hacking skills.
2a. Bunkers become conquerable once they are in hull.
2b. If a bunker is made conquerable the controlling pod-pilot gets ejected.
2c. A bunker cannot be boarded if it is conquerable.
2d. Control of a bunker can only be 'hacked' if it is conquerable.
2e. Bunkers stop being conquerable when they have their shields and armor repped past 50%.
4. Whoever has sov in the system can connect POS guns, ECM and energy neutralizing modules to these bunkers.
3a. Connected modules can be disconnected by whoever controls the bunker.
3b. Connected modules have 99.9% resists bonuses when connected to the bunker.
3c. No warp disruption modules can be connected to the bunkers.**
3d. Guns can be unloaded and reloaded from inside the bunker.
3e. If a bunker is conquerable, the attached modules cannot be operated.
* The reason behind very little HP is so that combat forces would not necessarily need cap ships to make an impact on sov warfare
** The reason behind not being able to fit warp disruption modules on the bunkers is so the bunker would have be used in conjunction with a defending force or it wouldn't be able to kill anything (except the folk who for some reason think its ok to go afk during a pos seige). These bunkers should not be a one man killing show.
The reason why I thought we should get away from the gates is that gate warfare is already too horrid. Adding another reason to blob the gate is getting away from the goal of having fun. Basically an attacking force would have to gain control to at least 75% of the control bunkers in a system to challenge the sov of the system. Once a bunker is made conquerable they have to be hacked to switch control of it from the defending force to the attacking force. Once the attacking force gets control to at least 75% of the bunkers, the status of the system becomes challenged for 24 hours. If, at any point, the defending force regains control to at least 75% of the bunkers the sov of the system is no longer challenged AND cannot be challenged again for another 24 hours (to give the defenders a rest).
What I envision is an initial gate blob fight that eventually turns into 24 hours+ hours of small gangs engaging and disengaging trying to maintain 75% control of the bunkers in a system. The small HP on a bunker ensures they can be downed, hacked and repaired fairly quickly by a mixed force of logistics, dps, and hacking ships. POSes would be related to mining and logistics structures only. Caps would make short work of bunkers but would not be necessary. If one side blobbed up they would control one or two bunkers but while they are warping to bunker A, bunker b, c, d, e, f, and g are all being attacked. When the blob leaves bunker A, the opposing force would re-engage bunker A. The blob would have to split up to defend the bunkers it has secured.
|