| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
   |
Posted - 2008.08.13 20:51:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Toman Jerich
I'm not trolling. I'm really interested in hearing what the problems are.
As for what you suggested about needing 100 caps: What's stopping you as high-sec or low-sec alliance? All it takes to get a 100-strong capfleet is ISK and cap-capable pilots. Anyone can train for caps, and anyone can earn the ISK for them. They honestly don't cost that much. For example, Star Fraction has a not-insignificant capfleet without being a 0.0 entity, and nothing is stopping them from getting more.
So, I don't really buy your first justification for why a healthy, determined high-sec or low-sec alliance can't carve out space in 0.0 under current mechanics.
I've never argued that it's impossible. I have argued that POS warfare is broken and one of the consequences is inability to affect sov except through mechanisms that force small powers to play into the hands of large powers.
There are 11,000 carriers in Eve. I'm aware they're not incredibly hard to come by.
The weapon of outnumbered forces throughout the history of mankind has been and always will be skirmish tactics and using superior mobility and tactical freedom of not being large and sedentary. Eve POS combat gives us scheduled battles that completely negate any of those skirmish tactics and in fact place all sovereign emphasis on giant fleet battles that are filled with lag, further negating any usage of tactics.
The mechanics of POS warfare designed to prevent time zone abuses are accidentally killing off the best weapon of outnumbered forces. Darius and other voices continually argue that nothing should be done to nerf large alliances as if people have a right to 0.0. The issue isn't the inherent strength of numbers but that smaller powers don't have access to their logical war-fighting tools of choice and are forced by mechanics designed to address time zone imbalance to fight on the favorable terms of a larger force.
Goons themselves didn't win the battle in syndicate against BoB. They made it to where there could be no winner using zerg tactics and a bunch of alts. BoB had nothing left meaningful to destroy. To a large alliance who is established in 0.0, getting wiped out means a huge loss of property and infrastructure. Zerg tactics can't work there.
I'm working to undo the accidents of time-zone balancing as well as add tactical mechanisms of not fighting on the larger power's terms. There should be no entitlement to favorable engagements for larger powers.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 20:59:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
I think that one important problem is the perception that it's not generally possible for a capable group of people to get a foothold in 0.0 and begin to expand.
I don't find that perception, or the perceived problem itself, to be an issue. If you do feel free to come up with ways to address it, but it's just a troll.
Things that do need improving in 0.0:
Separation of Logistics, Security and Sovereignty.
Opportunities for guerilla attacks against infrastructure.
Increased tools for territory Security.
The above addressed with an eye to layering of vulnerabilities to encompass Siege, Fleet and Small Gang tactics.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 21:47:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 13/08/2008 21:47:37
I kinda feel like this whole issue is driven by CCP's request for design ideas for small-gang objectives in sov warfare and not by any genuine passion for change along those lines in any large segment of the player base. They're looking for grass-roots solutions to a problem that doesn't really bite the grass roots. I can see why you're really eager to hold on to the focus of anyone who will actually continue to have this conversation with you.
If CCP hadn't put out that RFP asking for small-gang objectives in sov warfare, I wonder if we would have seen any serious suggestions along those lines.
I mean, I agree that since they asked for it and people have ideas that they should get those ideas to CCP and it's fun to discuss and all. I just kind of wish the effort would go to problems that a lot of players have with the game rather than problems that CCP has with the game. v0v
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 22:20:00 -
[94]
My personal issue is that we, the North, rolled up some alliances without much thought. Not because they weren't smart, willing, and prepared. It was because the nature of POS warfare forced them to engage us on 100% unfavorable fleet terms.
When it came time for SMASH to dissolve and RK was still going, I sympathized with RK for having the fortitude to stick with the fight. I knew that just like the alliances we rolled up in the North earlier, RK was at best going to get thrown into losec before any resurgence.
The timezone balancing mechanisms of POS's stick everyone into a horridly boring and overly straightforward engagement with very little room for good pilots and good commanders to make a difference.
In the end I think everyone will recognize huge benefits of better sov tools. Less boring POS shooting. More room for tactics. Less lag. More measured defeat or loss. The end of POS spam. Better 0.0 empires.
Many of the goals of small gang objectives can be achieved through better POS warfare, but I don't think POS warfare is a comprehensive solution. I don't believe it's time yet to abandon small gang objectives. This is the logical weapon of choice when outnumbered. |
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 22:53:00 -
[95]
I think we're getting way too scattered on this issue of the small gang crap.
Can we agree to come back on Sunday and basically just let the topics go for a few days?
I'm going to work on a solution in the meantime that will be based on this entire whole giant ball of discussion.
There's a lot of it and pretty much everyone has some valid points. I'm getting lost myself just in the shear volume of concerns that must be balanced before any real meaningful solution can be fielded.
Given I am not in a large alliance, have been in a large alliance, and plan to someday be back in a large alliance, I think I can come up with a solution that has a little bit of something for everyone and in the end looks like a giant sundae of delicious treats.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 22:58:00 -
[96]
I guess it's a bit of a tangent, but can you elaborate on what you're saying about RK? We had a number of memorable (for me, anyway) fights against them over their POS. in several fights they outnumbered us. After looking at their ship fittings on KMs and listening to recordings of what was going on on their TS, I really doubt that TZ or membership-numbers issues were why they failed. I mean they didn't even bother to time most of their POS; they just max-stronted them and hoped for the best.
But suppose that there was a TZ issue. Couldn't they have also have attacked our towers outside of our prime? They were smaller at the alliance level than us, but they could still field 200+ man fleets. Seems like they could have gotten something going.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 23:40:00 -
[97]
This has probably been all over COAD and I'd like not to turn it into that, but here was the war in Geminate as I saw it:
I got back to that thing after coming back from Japan. At that point, RK numbers were at about half. SMASH was basically gone. When you were in QT I was watching capitals running for their lives towards losec. The dissolution of SMASH (where'd Peoke go?) I think contributed more than anything to a lack of confidence that robbed a lot of fighting spirit and eventually lead to total implosion.
The general feeling was definitely that the battle was uphill and it would be better to wait for RedSwarm to go home and take back territory from the new pets. There was a huge amount of uncertainty over the point in flying a BS in the face of Titans. I cannot for one second fail to recall that my alliance mates were getting very weary of flying against alliances with Titans. To this fact our support fleets got smaller and smaller and then there was no point in flying our caps (or that's what our cap pilots thought).
It boils down to this: POS warfare is a guaranteed fleet battle with very little room to make up for numbers. People know it's black and white, so when the confidence is gone, you see the whole alliance heading straight down. People don't fit to win a fight if they don't think they can win. Suddenly the numbers are not packing a punch. Trust is replaced with bitterness.
I can't speak for most of the large fights and definitely none of the early ones. What you see in later combat is that people don't expect to be able to win outright, so they start clinching assets and engaging with trash. Even I was running around with T1 crap at that point doing little more than meatshield work.
If POS combat were improved such that the mechanics aren't guaranteed to be brutal to the less potent blob, you would see alliances holding onto morale for a much longer stretch. People would believe more in the ability to craftiness and you would see more attempts to make up ground through underhanded craziness.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of a losing alliance, but even if it weren't, the facts of POS warfare ensure that once we were off-balance, there was no coming back. SMASH scattered to the wind quickly and so my direct involvement was gone, but still I didn't like the situation for RK.
|
SauI Tigh
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 19:50:00 -
[98]
As a spy in Smash during the conflict I have the perspective that very few people get to have during these types of conflicts. That perspective showed Goonfleet destroying Smash and RK in every single arena. We had more caps then they did, larger gangs, better allies, better fcing, better organization since the majority of us was in one corp any bickering was just between individuals, better fittings on our ships we named a station BWFit Multispecs on everything for a reason, better spying, and better sneakiness in general. Even if pos mechanics would of been different we still would of wiped the floor with them.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:17:00 -
[99]
Originally by: SauI Tigh
As a spy in Smash during the conflict I have the perspective that very few people get to have during these types of conflicts. That perspective showed Goonfleet destroying Smash and RK in every single arena. We had more caps then they did, larger gangs, better allies, better fcing, better organization since the majority of us was in one corp any bickering was just between individuals, better fittings on our ships we named a station BWFit Multispecs on everything for a reason, better spying, and better sneakiness in general. Even if pos mechanics would of been different we still would of wiped the floor with them.
Counterpoint: All it took was one proton torpedo from one aspiring young Jedi in a small fighter to blow up the Death Star and save the rebel base on Yavin.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:51:00 -
[100]
Originally by: NanDe YaNen
I think we're getting way too scattered on this issue of the small gang crap.
Can we agree to come back on Sunday and basically just let the topics go for a few days?
I think it'd be a safe bet to not worry about small gangs necessarily affecting Sov as long as they have a way of raiding fixed infrastructure to do damage that way. SHC has a thread discussing what people would change about Sov and one suggestion I liked was basically:
-Unlink POS from Sovereignty
-Remove POS shields and guns
-Put the former POS Shields and Guns on a Sovereignty-claiming structure anchored at planets
-Figure out a way to prevent DDD from obliterating the now much more vulnerable, logistics-only POS and its modules.
I'd add to that:
-Add the ability to put low-sec caliber sentry guns at Stargates and POS, for light fire against raiding forces
-Implement an Array-style system for Cynojammers and the like
-Prevent the Jump Bridge from working in a Cynojammed system
|
Salastil
Gallente
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:55:00 -
[101]
So your fix to pos warfare is to create a new type of POS?
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 20:59:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Salastil
So your fix to pos warfare is to create a new type of POS?
That's what people are asking for. VoV
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 21:51:00 -
[103]
Hmmm. So when you're invading a system with a fleet and need to drop a staging POS (the main point of which is the POS shields), you now have a small fraction of the possible locations at which you might be able to do so compared with the current system. And since these new planet-POS are shields-and-guns, you can't anchor a CHA or SMA there to hold ammo or to refit or whatever.
Then on the carebear side, if you want to drop a ratting POS to act as a safespot and loot/mins depository for ratting or mining, you have to take up a comparatively rare planet-slot to do so rather than any old unused moon.
Ya, sounds like this was thoroughly thought through by someone who has a lot of first-hand experience in 0.0.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 22:27:00 -
[104]
The one complaint I have about this plan, Kelsin, is that you're stripping all the defensive capability off POSes. Maybe make them smaller, but they should still exist. Unmanned objects primarily dwelling in insecure space should not be utterly defenceless.
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 02:37:00 -
[105]
Quote:
-Unlink POS from Sovereignty
I've supported this
Quote:
-Remove POS shields and guns
-Put the former POS Shields and Guns on a Sovereignty-claiming structure anchored at planets
For those two above, guns should remain on all structures, and I think the modules that are outside of the shields are the right ones.
Quote:
-Figure out a way to prevent DDD from obliterating the now much more vulnerable, logistics-only POS and its modules
This is the inherent problem of removing the bubble shield from large structures and why they should stay.
Quote:
-Add the ability to put low-sec caliber sentry guns at Stargates and POS, for light fire against raiding forces
I think they should be normal POS guns, no need to nerf defensive firepower.
Quote:
-Implement an Array-style system for Cynojammers and the like -
-Prevent the Jump Bridge from working in a Cynojammed system -
Keep cyno jammers at a POS, they exist there now and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to be defended with a POS. Simply restrict jump bridges to sup-capital ships and freighters, keeping defensive capital ships outside of jammed systems.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:11:00 -
[106]
Well, however you want to do it the point is to make Moon POS a target for raiding forces, so shields and guns should just be balanced to that end, that's all. If it's better to simply state it that way and leave the details up to CCP, fine with me.
Basically Planets are for Capship Sovereignty Sieges and Moons are for Subcap Raiding.
The Cynojammer move may or may not be necessary if you reduce the firepower on POS, but it's been a very highly supported idea to place it away from POS. The Capship restriction on Jump Bridges in Cynojammed systems also works, the point simply being that a Cynojammer should block all Caps, not just enemy ones.
An additional idea to make the Sieges of Planetary Structures more interesting would be to place modules at each moon around the planet that must be attacked as part of the siege. A rough idea might look like this:
At the reinforcement battle the Defender and Attacker show up at the Planet. There are several modules located at moons around the Planet that are supporting the Planetary Structure, and in order to finally crack the Planetary Structure some portion of those modules must be disabled - but when disabled they only drop offline for 5-10 minutes. So there's a large battle around the Planet with additional battles taking place simultaneously to continuously keep enough of the Moon modules disabled to allow the Planet fleet to damage the Planetary Structure.
|
Vision Threads
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:16:00 -
[107]
lol why can't you guys see any kind of compromise on this stuff?
-Kelsin always talk about wanting small ship "disruption" objective, giving them something to do
-Goons want 0.0 to be more valuable and less boring stuff like POS set up
-Jade wants to shake up existing 0.0 powerblocks by making random which space is the best over time to keep the best alliance from sitting in the best spots forever
-Darus doesn't want all he and goons worked to build to fade b/c of some CSM proposal; wants to keep most big traditional elements of sov and 0.0
So instead always try to rewrite what is already there, why don't you ADD SOMETHING TOTALY NEW? Why don't you do something like this:
- Add new resource X. X needs to be valuable and unlike what is now in the game. It worth a lot of money and you always need to gather more and more of it. Kindof like moon minerals now, but this is a new resource used for some new purpose. But X only can be got in 0.0.
- X cannot be gathered by traditional mining or POS gathering or any other way that is in the game. You have to set up some new structure that is like what Kelsin want. You put it up away from POS, and small gangs can attack it and make it stop working for awhile.
- X spawns randomly all through space on like 2-3 month period. So maybe for 2-3 month BoB has much X, but then a lot of it goes to the North and if BoB wants to keep getting it they have to go MAX DAMAGE and fight for it.
- X has no effect on sov warfare or moon mining; none of that gets nerfed or made less valuable or any different. X is a new resource and adding it to the game makes 0.0 worth more.
So, what can you think off to be X?
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:25:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, however you want to do it the point is to make Moon POS a target for raiding forces, so shields and guns should just be balanced to that end, that's all. If it's better to simply state it that way and leave the details up to CCP, fine with me.
Basically Planets are for Capship Sovereignty Sieges and Moons are for Subcap Raiding.
The Cynojammer move may or may not be necessary if you reduce the firepower on POS, but it's been a very highly supported idea to place it away from POS. The Capship restriction on Jump Bridges in Cynojammed systems also works, the point simply being that a Cynojammer should block all Caps, not just enemy ones.
An additional idea to make the Sieges of Planetary Structures more interesting would be to place modules at each moon around the planet that must be attacked as part of the siege. A rough idea might look like this:
At the reinforcement battle the Defender and Attacker show up at the Planet. There are several modules located at moons around the Planet that are supporting the Planetary Structure, and in order to finally crack the Planetary Structure some portion of those modules must be disabled - but when disabled they only drop offline for 5-10 minutes. So there's a large battle around the Planet with additional battles taking place simultaneously to continuously keep enough of the Moon modules disabled to allow the Planet fleet to damage the Planetary Structure.
Hey, not bad. That requires some coordination of forces to pull off. I like ideas that require a fleet to break out into sub-units that all work together at the same time to do a job. Ya, the only thing I don't like is the inability to set up a shielded staging POS anywhere...maybe say one of the moon POS configurations can be basically what a POS is now, but it still doesn't contribute to SOV. So if you set up that kind of Deathstar POS, it's not a small gang objective because there's nothing there to disrupt and you wouldn't normally set one up in your own space -- it would really just be used as a staging point in an invasion.
I would try to come up with a role for Titans that could do the same thing, but you want the staging POS before the cynojammer goes down if you can get it.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 14:29:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, however you want to do it the point is to make Moon POS a target for raiding forces, so shields and guns should just be balanced to that end, that's all. If it's better to simply state it that way and leave the details up to CCP, fine with me.
Basically Planets are for Capship Sovereignty Sieges and Moons are for Subcap Raiding.
The Cynojammer move may or may not be necessary if you reduce the firepower on POS, but it's been a very highly supported idea to place it away from POS. The Capship restriction on Jump Bridges in Cynojammed systems also works, the point simply being that a Cynojammer should block all Caps, not just enemy ones.
An additional idea to make the Sieges of Planetary Structures more interesting would be to place modules at each moon around the planet that must be attacked as part of the siege. A rough idea might look like this:
At the reinforcement battle the Defender and Attacker show up at the Planet. There are several modules located at moons around the Planet that are supporting the Planetary Structure, and in order to finally crack the Planetary Structure some portion of those modules must be disabled - but when disabled they only drop offline for 5-10 minutes. So there's a large battle around the Planet with additional battles taking place simultaneously to continuously keep enough of the Moon modules disabled to allow the Planet fleet to damage the Planetary Structure.
Hey, not bad. That requires some coordination of forces to pull off. I like ideas that require a fleet to break out into sub-units that all work together at the same time to do a job. Ya, the only thing I don't like is the inability to set up a shielded staging POS anywhere...maybe say one of the moon POS configurations can be basically what a POS is now, but it still doesn't contribute to SOV. So if you set up that kind of Deathstar POS, it's not a small gang objective because there's nothing there to disrupt and you wouldn't normally set one up in your own space -- it would really just be used as a staging point in an invasion.
I would try to come up with a role for Titans that could do the same thing, but you want the staging POS before the cynojammer goes down if you can get it.
Hmm, staging points...
There had been a brief discussion of mobile infrastructure at one point - that'd be a very interesting idea - basically a mobile shield generator that could be cyno'd into a deadspace for an invading force to stage from. Just prevent it from being brought into anywhere but empty space (no moons, asteroid belts, etc). That'd be a pretty cool thing to have at your disposal.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:00:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Toman Jerich
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, however you want to do it the point is to make Moon POS a target for raiding forces, so shields and guns should just be balanced to that end, that's all. If it's better to simply state it that way and leave the details up to CCP, fine with me.
Basically Planets are for Capship Sovereignty Sieges and Moons are for Subcap Raiding.
The Cynojammer move may or may not be necessary if you reduce the firepower on POS, but it's been a very highly supported idea to place it away from POS. The Capship restriction on Jump Bridges in Cynojammed systems also works, the point simply being that a Cynojammer should block all Caps, not just enemy ones.
An additional idea to make the Sieges of Planetary Structures more interesting would be to place modules at each moon around the planet that must be attacked as part of the siege. A rough idea might look like this:
At the reinforcement battle the Defender and Attacker show up at the Planet. There are several modules located at moons around the Planet that are supporting the Planetary Structure, and in order to finally crack the Planetary Structure some portion of those modules must be disabled - but when disabled they only drop offline for 5-10 minutes. So there's a large battle around the Planet with additional battles taking place simultaneously to continuously keep enough of the Moon modules disabled to allow the Planet fleet to damage the Planetary Structure.
Hey, not bad. That requires some coordination of forces to pull off. I like ideas that require a fleet to break out into sub-units that all work together at the same time to do a job. Ya, the only thing I don't like is the inability to set up a shielded staging POS anywhere...maybe say one of the moon POS configurations can be basically what a POS is now, but it still doesn't contribute to SOV. So if you set up that kind of Deathstar POS, it's not a small gang objective because there's nothing there to disrupt and you wouldn't normally set one up in your own space -- it would really just be used as a staging point in an invasion.
I would try to come up with a role for Titans that could do the same thing, but you want the staging POS before the cynojammer goes down if you can get it.
Hmm, staging points...
There had been a brief discussion of mobile infrastructure at one point - that'd be a very interesting idea - basically a mobile shield generator that could be cyno'd into a deadspace for an invading force to stage from. Just prevent it from being brought into anywhere but empty space (no moons, asteroid belts, etc). That'd be a pretty cool thing to have at your disposal.
SWEET, SWEET PROGRESS 
Nice, it separates POS logistics and Planet SOV. It creates a clear way for logistics to be subject to raiding. Moon arrays that power a planetary shield sounds awesome and makes sense. And now removing the bubble shield from some moons seems viable, as changing the role of titans (removing DDD) prevents a titan from coming in a blowing up a whole POS.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:26:00 -
[111]
Doomsday could be turned into a focused single-target attack to make it a very powerful anti-capship weapon, and Titans could get this staging shield. That'd address a couple issues at once.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 15:51:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Kelsin
Doomsday could be turned into a focused single-target attack to make it a very powerful anti-capship weapon, and Titans could get this staging shield. That'd address a couple issues at once.
I do like the focused fire ability. Make it too expensive to justify one-swatting a battleship, but make it powerful enough to justify using against a capital. Putting the titan into siege mode activates the bubble and deactivates the focused DDD.
It would by funny if somewhere on the titan there was a giant cartoon Offense/Defense toggle.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 16:29:00 -
[113]
So it looks like we're heading towards a proposal that covers these:
1)Improvements to Sov Warfare - Planet Sov Structures supported by Moon Modules.
2)Moon POS turning to industrial-only, raidable by subcap gangs, somehow protected from DDD (either by getting rid of it or building in some invulnerabilty, etc).
3)Staging Area Shield - either mobile/deployable or new feature of revised Titan.
Anything else that would need to be addressed? I'm sure there's plenty of hashing out to be done regarding raiding of industrial infrastructure, but as a broad topic it seems people can agree it would be good to have.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:06:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 15/08/2008 17:15:24
Can we put some additionally bribery into it somehow to help people get over the hump of the fact that it is new and change is scary? No one is objective about this shit.
Also, it would be useful to go ahead and write a FAQ that answers all the easy objections to it that people will throw out without bothering to comprehend the proposal.
- Write why this isn't capture-the-flag.
- Explicitly justify why blobbing the individual objectives won't be effective.
- Explicitly justify why people won't want to use caps for every part of this (why caps will focus on the planetary objective and subcaps on the moon objectives)
- Add a step-by-step comparison of the new sov assault process with the old process to show that it doesn't make it take any longer or make it more tedious/boring.
- Explain why this won't alter the balance between the defender role and the attacker role
- Explain why this won't make it less profitable to live in 0.0 (bonus if it makes it more profitable; see request for additional bribery above)
You get the idea. It would help make the ensuing discussion be more than a bunch of partisan strawman bullshit, maybe.
Edit: And let Fahtim post the OP whenever it goes up so half the thread isn't "Hurr you don't even live in 0.0 wtf". Just trying to be pragmatic.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 17:10:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Kelsin
So it looks like we're heading towards a proposal that covers these:
1)Improvements to Sov Warfare - Planet Sov Structures supported by Moon Modules.
2)Moon POS turning to industrial-only, raidable by subcap gangs, somehow protected from DDD (either by getting rid of it or building in some invulnerabilty, etc).
3)Staging Area Shield - either mobile/deployable or new feature of revised Titan.
Anything else that would need to be addressed? I'm sure there's plenty of hashing out to be done regarding raiding of industrial infrastructure, but as a broad topic it seems people can agree it would be good to have.
Wording - 2) Moon POS turning to logistics/support-only, raidable by sub-cap gangs. Take away sovereignty claiming and move more modules outside the control tower shield. Possible moon roles: mining/industry, jump bridge, cyno jammer, planetary defense.
Mention outright that the redesign of sovereignty and the redesign of titans must go hand in hand.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 18:11:00 -
[116]
Sounds good to me. I can whip up a draft we can start working on - something straightforward and not too heavy on details to start, and go from there to get something ready for the assembly hall.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 19:12:00 -
[117]
First draft, just trying to be concise and lay it all out there:
Recommended Changes to 0.0
This issue focuses on three areas of changes to improve gameplay in 0.0 Sovereignty Warfare:
1) Improvements to Sovereignty Warfare
Changing the Sov-claiming structure from moon-anchored POS to Planet-anchored Bases.
2) Raidable Logistics/Support Infrastructure
Remove Sovereignty-claiming from moon-anchored POS, reduce automated defenses and move most modules outside Control Tower shield to open them up to attacks by raiding subcap gangs. POS would then be focused on specific non-Sov claiming roles such as: mining/industry, jump bridge, cyno jammer, planetary defense.
3) Invader Tools/Titan Rebalancing
To account for the above changes, removal of AOE effect from Doomsday Device, to be replaced with single-target anti-capship weapon and ôStaging Area Shieldö ability.
These three areas of change combined are intended to make Sovereignty Warfare more fun and multi-faceted and provide for better gameplay at the Siege level as well as offer tangible raiding objectives for small subcapital gangs.
Improvements to Sovereignty Warfare
This change primarily hinges on moving the basis of Sovereignty from moon-anchored POS to planet-anchored Bases, supported by planetary defense modules anchored at orbiting moons. A new Siege mechanic is introduced to make epic battles over these Planetary Bases more interesting.
The Planetary Base
The Planetary BaseÆs primary purpose is to establish Sovereignty over a solar system. Secondary roles could include acting as a Fuel Depot for POS at moons in orbit around the planet, to ease fueling logistics. Additional functions could also be added.
When attacked, the Planetary Base follows much the same path as current POS Siege mechanics, with one new addition:
Upon the expiration of the reinforcement timer, five Planetary Defense Modules anchored at orbiting moons come online. In order for the main fleet to inflict damage on the Planetary Base, 3 of the 5 PDMs must be disabled. When disabled via damage, a PDM will go into a short (5-10 minute) downtime to repair itself. Once repaired it will come back online and resume supporting the Planetary Base. Thus, Attacking forces must continuously suppress the PDMs around the Base while the main Siege force attacks the Base itself.
The Defending force must anchor the PDMs, but they are dormant and cannot be targeted until the Planetary Base exits a reinforcement timer.
Options for making the PDM mechanic even more interesting include having them govern the heavy guns that defend the Planetary Base, so that suppressing them deactivates the guns to aid the main siege force.
New Roles of Moon-anchored Player Owned Stations + Raiding
With the movement of Sovereignty mechanics to Planetary Bases, Moon-anchored POS are free to be refocused as logistics/support facilities, and can be re-balanced to be targets for smaller raiding forces to inflict financial and logistical damage.
Automated defenses can be downgraded to be on a level consistent with attacks by small to medium size subcapital gangs. Facilities at the POS are made vulnerable to attack in a fashion similar to Station Services, so that raiding forces that can infiltrate enemy territory can inflict financial damage by halting production, research, moon-mining, etc. Actual destruction of modules requires the destruction of the Control Tower itself.
Invader Tools/Titan Rebalancing
To accompany the above changes, a new tool must be added to the arsenal of invading forces and the AOE damage element of the Doomsday Device must be changed. These two changes can be taken together to give a new tool to the Titan in exchange for reducing the power of its signature weapon.
In place of the AOE damage element of the Doomsday Device, it is recommended that the Device be changed to a powerful single-target blast designed for use against enemy Capital Ships and Supercaps.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 19:12:00 -
[118]
(didn't quite all fit)
In addition, to provide for increased ability to stage forces in enemy systems prior to Sieges, a POS-caliber shield is recommended as a new module for the Titan, allowing it to temporarily create a safe zone in empty space to act as a staging ground. With this addition the Titan will truly be a mobile battlestation.
Conclusion
Taken together, these changes will improve the fun and variety of warfare in 0.0 space for all levels of force deployment û from the raiding small gang all the way up to the epic Siege battle.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 20:55:00 -
[119]
Objection: This does nothing about the "Capitals Online" problem. People will just use capitals for taking down the moon-based planetary defense modules in addition to using them to take down the planetary base.
The PDMs only stay down 5-10 minutes. Think about how long it takes you to warp slow-aligning caps around in a laggy fleet fight. You will never get your caps back into position at the planetary base to do damage to it during its window of vulnerability after taking down the PDMs. Your dreads need to be sitting there ready to go into siege when they get their window of opportunity.
Also, if you choose to attack the PDMs with caps, you risk several negative consequences:
- If you blob your caps around, then your caps might be bubbled or trapped in siege mode at the PDM during the brief window during which the planetary base is vulnerable.
- If you foolishly split your caps up among the PDMs, your several small groups of caps might get individually blobbed and destroyed by the defender.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 21:05:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 15/08/2008 21:07:04
Objection: People are just going to blob all the planetary defense modules. Noone will spread out.
If you take that approach you're going to waste a lot of your dreads's siege cycles and make the process take longer overall.
Suppose that you need to knock out 3 out of 5 PDMs to make the planetary base vulnerable. When incapacitated, the PDM stays down for 10 minutes -- one siege cycle. If you split your forces and coordinate so that they all go down at about the same time, you can get about one full siege cycle of damage in. If your blob takes them down one at a time and it takes 4 minutes for each one, then by the time you've taken down #3, #1 is going to come online in two minutes or so. Enjoy your two minutes of siege damage before the base goes invulnerable again.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |