| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Amin
   |
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:06:00 -
[1]
With the vacuum of detailed information about exactly how player built structures operate, it will be interesting to see how the defense of them is dealt with.
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. Where nothing is actually destroyed so you haven't actually lost an investment, yes, you have lost access to the stations facilities and your hanger but u can always capture it back.
With player built structures if your base gets attacked when all your members are sleeping/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  .
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 assaulted 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-un penetrable bases that 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.
Its defenses would have to be pretty formidable, anyway, as everyone but everyone will want to capture it. With a stationary target like POS, an enemy could quite easily organize an attack with massive numbers of battleships when the least number of enemy pilots are on. This, unlike, with so called "blob wars" is worse, you cant just fall back to a safer system or find a safe place to log off for the night.
Suggestions? Idea's? Alternatives? 
Drink StarsiÖ Relation Co-ordinator
Caldari State Citizen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Phasics
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:14:00 -
[2]
deploaybles cannot be captured
think of them like secure cans you delpoy and other can either attack it or ignore it ther is no chance to capture it
same with these larger deploaybles either destroy or ignore, there not abses to be captured there stand alone structres with a single purpose
allowing them to be capture will make it even worse as pirate corp will fly aorund in huge battlegroups capturing and un-deploying and taking the deploayables with them
either destory or ignore , there wont be a capture function, it's not a station that changes hands when HP reach 0 , these thing go boom when they reach 0
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:22:00 -
[3]
Since they are player owned structures and truly massive investments, I doubt people NOT able to defend then 23/7 would construct them. Rather, I would expect alliances to save up and arrange defense around them.
This'd mean that more of their ships will have to be concentrated in one part of their territory, and ultimately, this could reduce Alliances to claim constellations instead of entire regions.
I imagine the stationary defenses will take the form of the same defenses that NPC's have to their disposal, Blaster turrets, Missile launchers and the Tachyon towers mentioned in the Shiva update.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Gan Ning
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:22:00 -
[4]
Deployable stations should have insane shielding and structure so that it will take a few days of sieging to destroy one. That will allow enough time for players to fight back with reinforcements round the clock.
I agree with your idea that a stations maintainence should require heavily on either minerals or certain trade goods. If a station is besiged for say 4 days then it obviously becomes weaker as it has no resources to repair itself.
Other Player owned structures should be easier to destroy but stations should be the hardest, and when a station is destroyed i think it should spawn 100 containers full of assorted minerals and trade goods. :)
|
Bsport
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:58:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Discorporation
I would expect alliances to save up and arrange defense around them.
This'd mean that more of their ships will have to be concentrated in one part of their territory, and ultimately, this could reduce Alliances to claim constellations instead of entire regions.
which means that normal ppl will never see these as they will be tucked away deep in 0.0's
--------
|~~~| I run out of money, so bunny has been
| OIL | grounded down to make grease for my
|____| rifter- poor bunny
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 13:03:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Gan Ning
Other Player owned structures should be easier to destroy but stations should be the hardest, and when a station is destroyed i think it should spawn 100 containers full of assorted minerals and trade goods. :)
/emote drools..... 
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Amin
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 13:33:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Phasics
deploaybles cannot be captured
think of them like secure cans you delpoy and other can either attack it or ignore it ther is no chance to capture it
same with these larger deploaybles either destroy or ignore, there not abses to be captured there stand alone structres with a single purpose
allowing them to be capture will make it even worse as pirate corp will fly aorund in huge battlegroups capturing and un-deploying and taking the deploayables with them
either destory or ignore , there wont be a capture function, it's not a station that changes hands when HP reach 0 , these thing go boom when they reach 0
Im not saying they should or shouldn't be capturable. Regardless, they will/ be destroyable, hence that's where the problem will be. Losing a a whole base will be financially devistating to the owners.
Originally by: Discorporation
Since they are player owned structures and truly massive investments, I doubt people NOT able to defend then 23/7 would construct them. Rather, I would expect alliances to save up and arrange defense around them.
This'd mean that more of their ships will have to be concentrated in one part of their territory, and ultimately, this could reduce Alliances to claim constellations instead of entire regions.
I was thinking along the same lines, but Alliances will not only have to reduce their claim but perhaps, the larger alliances will split up into smaller factions of a few corps.
Drink StarsiÖ Relation Co-ordinator
Caldari State Citizen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Jav Rendei
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 13:52:00 -
[8]
One of the best ideas I've read on this subject was by Murple - about 'locking down' POS when no one is online to defend them.
Any installation in use can be attacked/destroyed/captured etc, and as such will need players in the vicinity to help defend it (as well as use its facilities).
But at the end of the day, the owner corp can 'lock down' their POS and all power will be diverted to its defences - effectivley making it indestructable. The time taken to lockdown a POS would have to be signifiact (maybe 1 hour) as to prevent exploits etc.
No one can defend a POS 24/7, so only make it vulnerable when its actually in use - that way you're GURANTEED PvP confilct over such items.
I also think and POS should not be visible on the map. Rival corps should have to scout each system one by one to locate them.
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Bsport
which means that normal ppl will never see these as they will be tucked away deep in 0.0's
Quite right. And, there's nothing wrong with that, either.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Isiana
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:16:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Bsport
which means that normal ppl will never see these as they will be tucked away deep in 0.0's
Quite right. And, there's nothing wrong with that, either.
Maybe it will lure more ppl into 0.0 instead of carebearing in empire all day long
Carebear|Me
Alts |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:18:00 -
[11]
Carebearing in Empire or 0.0, what's the difference?
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Deaune
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:20:00 -
[12]
I reference you to the devblog put up about an hour ago regarding mines. :)
But what i'd like to know myself is if the new sentries can be used to defend stargates and other structures in 0.0, such as capturable stations? Or are they limited to moon orbit, as control towers seem to be.
|
wamingo
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Bsport
which means that normal ppl will never see these as they will be tucked away deep in 0.0's
Quite right. And, there's nothing wrong with that, either.
well except maybe that most who look forward to the expansion will likely be severely disappointed...
-- I won't not promise to avoid refraining from harming you! .... What? |
Loka
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:37:00 -
[14]
Think about this guys. If Zombie is able to tank a whole day all defence in Yulai, why dont will be the defence of POS also been tankable? Or attacking them with large blobs from 200km. Taking out one sentry after another till all are gone. Imho atm there would be no way to defend the stations, except of large player fleets 23/7.
I hope there will be a "new" denfense system for POS or they are worthless. Alliancess which already have stations wouldnt build any and some corps which will try will be shoot to stoneage with the destruction of their stations. Even if they arent shown on map. The blob of player are and so everybody knows where to search.
_____________________________________
Dead or Alive
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:41:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Loka
Think about this guys. If Zombie is able to tank a whole day all defence in Yulai, why dont will be the defence of POS also been tankable? Or attacking them with large blobs from 200km. Taking out one sentry after another till all are gone. Imho atm there would be no way to defend the stations, except of large player fleets 23/7.
I hope there will be a "new" denfense system for POS or they are worthless. Alliancess which already have stations wouldnt build any and some corps which will try will be shoot to stoneage with the destruction of their stations. Even if they arent shown on map. The blob of player are and so everybody knows where to search.
Destroy the control towers and everything falls apart 
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Rinekar
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:00:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Rinekar on 17/05/2004 15:01:31
I think they should be indestructable, but have restrictions on were they can be placed and how they can be opperated.
Having player owned structures only in 0.0 space would be a mistake. There are plenty of good systems in empire alone that can make good player run trading stations, mining outposts, shipyards and casinos and other such functions.
This would not only add an interesting player dynamic to empire but make it more interesting from the dead NPC agent interaction.
Outside of Empire they can suit the same purpose but on a more expansive scale. I personally would love to have a POS in 0.0 and claim a system soveriegn territory.
As for upkeep on the structures it needs to be a must. If some kind of upkeep is not in place we will find trash POS all over with no way to get rid of them.
So my idea for conquerable or capturable POS is as follows.
If X character or corporation cannot take care of said POS (upkeep) they change from being indestructable to destructable (become derilicts / run down) and also become capturable by other people who can in turn repair them and un-anchor and move them at will...
|
Bsport
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Bsport
which means that normal ppl will never see these as they will be tucked away deep in 0.0's
Quite right. And, there's nothing wrong with that, either.
so is this a alliance only update. Because most of the players live in empire
--------
|~~~| I run out of money, so bunny has been
| OIL | grounded down to make grease for my
|____| rifter- poor bunny
|
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:25:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Bsport
so is this a alliance only update. Because most of the players live in empire
PoS will be anchorable in 0.0 space only, that's a given. But, you are forgetting the pve dungeons, altered corporation functions, and the stackload of stuff for all spaces.
Of course, what's more fun then getting back at an alliance by destroying their PoS?
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
DeGrand
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:26:00 -
[19]
The best ideas are the ones that arent to complicated. 2 thumbs up!
One sidenote though...this kinda destroys pvp over the POS at first glance. But thats not the case actually...the indys that bring in the `upkeep` will need defending.
Originally by: Rinekar
Edited by: Rinekar on 17/05/2004 15:01:31
I think they should be indestructable, but have restrictions on were they can be placed and how they can be opperated.
Having player owned structures only in 0.0 space would be a mistake. There are plenty of good systems in empire alone that can make good player run trading stations, mining outposts, shipyards and casinos and other such functions.
This would not only add an interesting player dynamic to empire but make it more interesting from the dead NPC agent interaction.
Outside of Empire they can suit the same purpose but on a more expansive scale. I personally would love to have a POS in 0.0 and claim a system soveriegn territory.
As for upkeep on the structures it needs to be a must. If some kind of upkeep is not in place we will find trash POS all over with no way to get rid of them.
So my idea for conquerable or capturable POS is as follows.
If X character or corporation cannot take care of said POS (upkeep) they change from being indestructable to destructable (become derilicts / run down) and also become capturable by other people who can in turn repair them and un-anchor and move them at will...
|
Rinekar
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:35:00 -
[20]
My thoughts about upkeep would make blob wars less effective. Making corps at war with each other (or wanting what the other has) needing to setup blockades to stop in-coming and outgoing supplies therefore rendering the POS inert and capturable due to lack of upkeep. Good point on the indies though...
|
Isiana
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:38:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Discorporation
Carebearing in Empire or 0.0, what's the difference?
Carebearing in 0.0 means u can kill them 
Carebear|Me
Alts |
Deadflip2
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:40:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Phasics
deploaybles cannot be captured
think of them like secure cans you delpoy and other can either attack it or ignore it ther is no chance to capture it
same with these larger deploaybles either destroy or ignore, there not abses to be captured there stand alone structres with a single purpose
allowing them to be capture will make it even worse as pirate corp will fly aorund in huge battlegroups capturing and un-deploying and taking the deploayables with them
either destory or ignore , there wont be a capture function, it's not a station that changes hands when HP reach 0 , these thing go boom when they reach 0
as a matter affect mate, theres rumors about hacking..
---
"this song reminds me of the girl i met on a schooltrip, she was really nice, and she really liked me.
I forgot to ask her her phone number" - Nelix trist
OMG im a pretzel!!! |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:40:00 -
[23]
They're carebears, they'll have 25 warpcore stabs, three mwds and three dozen safespots
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Amin
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 16:04:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Rinekar
My thoughts about upkeep would make blob wars less effective. Making corps at war with each other (or wanting what the other has) needing to setup blockades to stop in-coming and outgoing supplies therefore rendering the POS inert and capturable due to lack of upkeep. Good point on the indies though...
Maybe, im misunderstanding what you mean, but thats the whole point. If a base is put under siege for long enough it would simply run out of resources to run.
Dont get me wrong,this isnt supposed to be a 24hr protection thing, definatly not, majority of the time you would need active pilots providing protection.
Drink StarsiÖ Relation Co-ordinator
Caldari State Citizen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 16:19:00 -
[25]
I posted this in another thread and I will post it here.
It is a simple idea to solve the GMT/EST problem.
A shield could be erected at a group of deployables. It can be run for a period of 12 hours each day. If it is reprogrammed for a different time period, it takes 24 hours to be applied (to avoid griefing). Plus, the settings are public.
This would allow anyone who can defend a station half of the day a chance to build a group of deployables.
|
Isiana
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 16:32:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Discorporation
They're carebears, they'll have 25 warpcore stabs, three mwds and three dozen safespots
 
Carebear|Me
Alts |
Gan Ning
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 16:34:00 -
[27]
There has to be the right balance between making a station not impossible to destroy but also not making it too easy.
Got to also think about the attacking force, they need to sleep too. Last thing they want is to wake up after 12 hours of blasting and find the station has full shields again. |
Karhig Duruckhai
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 17:13:00 -
[28]
My biggest question atm is if the defensive PODS, ie missile batteries, sentry guns, tachyon turrets etc are only anchorable around the stations themselves. This to me would be a bad thing. I would like to see alliances being able to claim SPACE, that is the actual systems, by defending the gates and setting up sentry guns similarly to in empire. As I'm reading it atm (see the article at fragland.com), you can only deploy these things around a control tower itself in a fixed grid arrangement. This would mean that only the Control Towers were alliance controlled, the surrounding space would not be anymore controlled than it is now. To me this seems like the wrong way to go. If an alliance is to truelly control space it needs to be able to control the access routes.
Thats the key to policing borders and to fixed defences, you need to close off bottlenecks and let geography do the rest. At the moment it looks like a fleet will still be able to wander into a system with a Control Tower, wait until the defenders are suffering from sleep deprevation (easy to do as the attacker, since you're picking the time of battle) and can't help but fall asleep, then slaughter them and destroy the station. This doesn't quite seem right to me. Imho, sentry guns and other defensive structures should be able to be anchored anywhere you like, at the very least, around stargates.
regards,
|
Bella Verde
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 17:16:00 -
[29]
I really like the thread starters idea! 
It would be even better if they were capturable, though.
|
Cortex Reaver
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 19:38:00 -
[30]
Okay, first of all. . . you people saying it should take days to destroy a player-built structure are freak'n carebears. If you don't know that, you're in denial.
Second of all, I would like to point out that one of EVE's strong points is the risk. When you take a 100Misk battleship with another 100Misk worth of modules into battle, you're risking a huge chunk of effort. It's no simple thing to recover from, nor should it be. This game was never meant to be like an FPS where if you get whacked, you just click fire and start all over again. Even compared to other MMORPGs, EVE represents significant risk. The last one I played was Neocron and if you died in that game, you'd drop a random item from your equipment built. It might simply be a medpack or a drug, but it just might be your prized, four-slotted, sharpened, ammo-modded Plasma Rifle that cost you 300000nc, but that was still no big deal. You could make up 30000nc with an hour or two in a level 5 sewer. But in EVE, if you but some actual guns instead of mining lasers on you battleship and take it out of 1.0 space, you're risking a buttload of time and effort.
If you're gonna build a tower and surround it with tower mods, then defend it well, 'cause you're gonna lose an a$$load of work if it gets destroyed.
Don't like it? Then buy "Carebears Color Book Adventure" and stay the hell off these forums.
-CR
/*
Cortex Reaver
crtxreavr at trioptimum dot com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
*/ |
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 21:23:00 -
[31]
No doubt these will be visible from Earth even, as soon as they're built every little bit of info even from the computerized urinals will be transmitted across the galaxy for all to see and people will go there to destroy them, not 'cause they're enemies but 'cause they can...
The first ones who build one should build the cheapest token construction and take a bow and exit to the left as people applaud the instant desctruction of said target.
Convert Stations
|
Amin
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 21:38:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Amin on 17/05/2004 21:39:21
Oh, i agree, there always need to be risk, and POS will finally give alliances an opertunaty to really hurt their rivals both logistically and financially.
But...
Originally by: Cortex Reaver
Second of all, I would like to point out that one of EVE's strong points is the risk. When you take a 100Misk battleship with another 100Misk worth of modules into battle, you're risking a huge chunk of effort.
Your exampe here doesnt apply in this case. With a battleship i choose to go into combat, i can choose to fight, or i can choose to try and retreat. If i lose my battleship, its cos i was either stupid or was beaten fair and square. But with POS, u cant warp to a planet and log off. Unlike your battleship which can log off or dock.
Drink StarsiÖ Relation Co-ordinator
Caldari State Citizen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Shirei
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 21:46:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Cortex Reaver
Okay, first of all. . . you people saying it should take days to destroy a player-built structure are freak'n carebears. If you don't know that, you're in denial.
The other extreme is just as bad, if not worse.
If POS need 10-20+ BS guarding them 24/7 then simply noone would build them (except maybe at safespots 100 au from any other object) making all the developer time spent on implementing them wasted.
Simply put, I think it should not be enough to have a local superiority for a few hours to eliminate weeks if not months worth of investment because such a local superiority is almost impossible to prevent due to people playing in different timezones.
There should be balance between the amount of effort necessary to defend a POS and the amount of effort necessary to destroy a POS. If the defenders would have to organise dozens of people to be ready at virtually any time while the attackers would just have to get a sizeable fleet together at one point for a few hours (which they do anyway), that would clearly not be balanced.
|
Cortex Reaver
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 21:47:00 -
[34]
Originally by: AminYour exampe here doesnt apply in this case. With a battleship i choose to go into combat, i can choose to fight, or i can choose to try and retreat. If i lose my battleship, its cos i was either stupid or was beaten fair and square. But with POS, u cant warp to a planet and log off. Unlike your battleship which can log off or dock.[/quote
Of course it does. If you build a station, you do so at a risk. You choose to do it. Just like you chose to take the mining lasers off your Dominatrix.
The best defense for stations will be hiding them. If you drop one right next to the jump gate, you deserve to lose it.
-CR
/*
Cortex Reaver
crtxreavr at trioptimum dot com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
*/ |
KarateKid
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 23:41:00 -
[35]
Will you be able to insure POS? 
Like you can your bs...
|
Managalar
|
Posted - 2004.05.18 00:16:00 -
[36]
It doesn't sound like any of you have any idea how the deployable bases are supposed to work. I have the impression from various sources that the deployable bases will be very mobile. Hence, at the end of the day you pick up shop and fly it all back to a space station, and definitly not something you want to leave sitting around.
=======Abaddon=======
=======Abaddon======= |
Haratu
|
Posted - 2004.05.18 00:22:00 -
[37]
player built staions should be like secure cargo containers... placed in the same places, have huge amounts of hitpoints, however need higher level of anchoring to use.
I roleplay... there is this computer game called "Earth - The First Genesis" where i play a character in the early 21st century. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |