EVE Search - [ISSUE] Cloaking Pirate Bases (Small Offensive Anchorable Structures)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] Cloaking Pirate Bases (Small Offensive Anchorable Structures)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:58:00 - [1] The following is a combined proposal which is more specific and on a smaller scale than what I usually prefer to deal with but I thought it was neat. I'm submitting this on behalf of my brosef Vio Geraci and have credited the necessary inspirational/contributive minds at the bottom. This is mostly a braindump intended to stimulate discussion, and it would be cleaned up before being finally issued. Concept A Pirate Base structure that is launched at a safespot and is designed to be deployed offensively, and allowing one to refit/store loot. "Covert POS" maybe. It would not be scannable or probe-able, and would have a shield that prevented things within radius from being probed out --perhaps by cloaking anything within that radius. No defenses per say, but also not findable except via infiltration (meta gaming) or if it goes offline due to fuel issues. Perhaps one can probe it out during a half hour period each day, as it refuels. Lunacy? This is less dumb than it sounds --there's nothing radically unfair about being able to refit and hide loot/reload. The problem I can think of is people would deploy these in their own territory and then just leave their ships there, rather than at POS as they do --maybe this isn't that bad a problem, or maybe have the cloaking shield only extend 5km and have it eject unpiloted ships/cans in a manner similar to some POS, which are then scannable and potentially compromise the base. Limits Making a "cloaking radius" very small will limit the number of ships that can hide in it, and also make it possible for a ship to drift outside of it by accident, allowing the base to be probed out. The radius would have to be small enough to prevent entire fleets and especially capitals from hiding there. Perhaps 500m. Perhaps warping to one of these bases would stop you 500m away from the shield, in a manner similar to POS shields, so that there is a small window in which to probe people out, and adding risk whenever they are used. Storage Capabilities Make its storage capacity small, perhaps around the size of a carrier's cargo space. Definitely not big enough to store POS parts. This isn't a covert offensive staging facility so much as a base for prolonged griefing operations. Perhaps make it impossible to anchor them in sov 4 systems. Perhaps limit the kind of things that can be stored in them. Destroying It In concept, it would be killable via metagame espionage, lack of fuel, or carelessness, like maybe ships can't idle at it too long. Perhaps it needs to be refueled daily, so it is imprudent to maintain too many of these at once. Or perhaps it would only need a small amount of fuel but it would have to be manually moved, each day. Advantages Advantages include enabling asymmetrical warfare, offering incentives for corps or operating groups to be smaller and thus less vulnerable to espionage, more fun things to spend money on and build, more places to fight that aren't a POS or station, more fun anchorable structures. It also would allow ships hiding at it to not cripple their setups by fitting a cloak. I believe most of the mechanics for this are already in the game, and so this would not be an undue strain upon CCP man-hours. Credit for Inspiration/Suggestions: Jade Constantine, Darius "I'm Very Busy" Johnson, Daveydweeb, ~Vio Geraci~ Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
Drake Draconis Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:04:00 - [2] That would be devious... but very cool. I would also like to think such a thing could be use not just at a safe spot... but elsewhere. However you need to clearly indicate the definition of a "safespot". And what of standard POS spots? Could you deploy such a thing there? And would you be able to set up the usual POS equipment as well... observing the limitations of course.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:07:00 - [3] Originally by: Drake Draconis That would be devious... but very cool. I would also like to think such a thing could be use not just at a safe spot... but elsewhere. However you need to clearly indicate the definition of a "safespot". And what of standard POS spots? Could you deploy such a thing there? And would you be able to set up the usual POS equipment as well... observing the limitations of course. I believe the concept to be essentially an unprobeable forward base for small gang griefing in enemy territory. As such simply anchoring them to moons as per a normal POS would be unacceptable. I'm thinking more along the lines of it being an anchorable cloaking container with a decently sized field. So your gang can store your shit in it while raiding hostile turf. No POS equipment. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:11:00 - [4] This might be exactly the sort of thing that guerrilla warfare needs. The covert cyno gen off a covert station in enemy territory would be even cooler. Supported. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos!
Will Hunter GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:17:00 - [5] Edited by: Will Hunter on 09/10/2008 18:17:35 this is awesome, Vio is awesome
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:19:00 - [6] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 09/10/2008 18:07:45 Originally by: Drake Draconis That would be devious... but very cool. I would also like to think such a thing could be use not just at a safe spot... but elsewhere. However you need to clearly indicate the definition of a "safespot". And what of standard POS spots? Could you deploy such a thing there? And would you be able to set up the usual POS equipment as well... observing the limitations of course. I believe the concept to be essentially an unprobeable forward base for small gang griefing in enemy territory. As such simply anchoring them to moons as per a normal POS would be unacceptable. I'm thinking more along the lines of it being an anchorable cloaking container with a decently sized field. So your gang can store your shit in it while raiding hostile turf. No POS equipment. :edit: Although some form of covert cyno beacon would be p. cool. The only issue I have is the defition of a "safespot" would have to be some sort of area defined clearly with boundries to prevent abuse. So perhaps anything in empty space with a surounding radius of nothing for.... 2 to 3AU's minimum? Call it a shot in the dark... but if you could clearly indicate the limit... that would be great. as far as what kind of equipment... I was only thinking of hidden hangers... and what not. But yeah... I'm good for it. PS: Nice to see the professional and rational side of the Goons... I may have misjudged you. Not all Goons are alike it would seem. Nice work Darius... nice work. /signed
Elhina Novae Sky's Edge	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:21:00 - [7] Edited by: Elhina Novae on 09/10/2008 18:24:31 Good idea but needs alot of work, supported. EDIT: re-read your post and noticed my idea, was actually your idea :D ------------ Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: SurrenderMonkey ... There's an Amarr problem? Nothing that can't be solved by more Minmatar nerfs.
westyx	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:37:00 - [8] To stop people from deploying from within their own territory, you could make it so it can only be deployed in constellations that are owned by a wartarget of yours. Soon as the war ends or soveignty changes, the cloak drops and they're probeable.
HerbTarlek	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:54:00 - [9] Originally by: westyx To stop people from deploying from within their own territory, you could make it so it can only be deployed in constellations that are owned by a wartarget of yours. Soon as the war ends or soveignty changes, the cloak drops and they're probeable. This would be silly, since 0.0 powers rarely formally wardec each other while actually fighting.
Nastasia Muse deii feram	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:00:00 - [10] It's the kernel of a pretty good idea. What I'd say, though, is that the covert cyno generator would be overpowered, as well as devaluing the black ops BS. If people want to generate covert cynos, make them insert the right ship.

Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:01:00 - [11] Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 09/10/2008 19:01:54 Originally by: westyx To stop people from deploying from within their own territory, you could make it so it can only be deployed in constellations that are owned by a wartarget of yours. Soon as the war ends or soveignty changes, the cloak drops and they're probeable. naw people would just abuse this with an alt alliance claming sov with a mutual wardec then. sounds like it would add a nice new mechanic to the game thou
Tamir Lenk Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:01:00 - [12] Originally by: westyx To stop people from deploying from within their own territory, you could make it so it can only be deployed in constellations that are owned by a wartarget of yours. Soon as the war ends or soveignty changes, the cloak drops and they're probeable. Overall, this is a pretty clever concept. I would not tie deployment to war-decs because I'd hate to see that mechanic have utility beyond Empire. That also limits the ability to use these in meta-gaming (e.g., to deploy them in territory of an ally to double cross them). OTOH, tying the utility of this to offensive operations is better. Instead of war-decs, perhaps they should be cloaked only when deployed in systems of different sovereignty. If sovereignty changes, all newly friendly ninja-POSes decloak and appear on scanner to anyone.
Daddy's AlmostThere	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:11:00 - [13] Sounds like a good way to add a bit of intrigue and surprise to the current predictability of fights--being able to conceal numbers as well as give hidden bases. I would make these things have a glass jaw, where 5km SmartBombs, Stealth Bomber bombs, and even doomsdays would reveal or quickly destroy these structures. It would make those using these have to be extra cautious, in that you don't always need a covops to foil these bases--it just helps a lot.
CowsCANBark	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:21:00 - [14] I think you should be able to get 10 people at this, just like the number of people able to refit at a carrier.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:22:00 - [15] Have kicked around the idea several times myself. By any measure would make the game more interesting. Kind of disappointing that the only means of offline presence so far is outposts. It's like a right of existence...inalienable rights. Yeah. That's the stuff.
Mike Yass GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:24:00 - [16] This is a good idea, but it still hurts my favorite form of PvP, defense gangs.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:27:00 - [17] I would love this kind of stuff from my own personal play style. But I have a concern about a thing which is designed so that there MUST be meta-gaming in order to destroy/counter it. So I'm really not sure what to think of this. Isn't it going to make the "griefing" that happens with people who sit cloaked in a system for hours, scaring ratters away? I personally think it's a valid play-style. But people are going to whine about it, and this will decrease the barrier to entry for doing it.
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:30:00 - [18] I would like to see the fuel capacity max 14 days for example, but seperate cloaking fuel max capacity 24 hours. No stront so if its allowed to go uncloaked, its destroyable immediately. And make it faction only, with fitting variatins depending onfaction.. maybe even unique abilities per faction, and reasonably expensive. KIA EVE Home KIA in game Public Channel "KIA" KIA are Currently recruiting active PvP minded players. Contact Imperius Blackheart
Gramtar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:35:00 - [19] I was part of the early discussion on this. After weighing the pros and cons, I'm personally against the idea of the Base generating a cloaking field for nearby ships, unless there's some mechanism to prevent permanent afk-cloaking. If you want to do that, simply fit a cloak on your ship. Also, I like the idea of being able to probe out the Base via ships while it's being used and refueled. One thing not specifically mentioned above is the Base has obvious PVE uses as well - to rat and explore in hostile space. In terms of storage capacity, I think a proper size would be roughly that of a GSC (3900 m3).
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:38:00 - [20] Originally by: LaVista Vista I would love this kind of stuff from my own personal play style. But I have a concern about a thing which is designed so that there MUST be meta-gaming in order to destroy/counter it. So I'm really not sure what to think of this. Isn't it going to make the "griefing" that happens with people who sit cloaked in a system for hours, scaring ratters away? I personally think it's a valid play-style. But people are going to whine about it, and this will decrease the barrier to entry for doing it. The idea that was tossed around, and wasn't perhaps clear enough in the proposal is that the anchorable would be vulnerable periodically, perhaps during a refueling cycle that must happen daily, or when a ship dips outside the shields. Then the structure can be probed. The intent was for meta-gaming to be A way to find it but certainly not the ONLY way. People will whine about virtually any proposal. A lot of people seem to want to play a game in which they're completely invincible. That game isn't Eve and when you're playing a cut throat game, someone is always going to be unhappy. That is inherent in the design. To further add to the statement regarding people sitting cloaked in a system for hours... so what? It's a perfectly valid play mechanic and I'm really not all that concerned about people complaining about the way people choose to play a game within the rules. Some people flat out don't like cloaks. Others don't like speed. It's the nature of the beast. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!

Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:41:00 - [21] Originally by: KIAEddZ I would like to see the fuel capacity max 14 days for example, but seperate cloaking fuel max capacity 24 hours. No stront so if its allowed to go uncloaked, its destroyable immediately. And make it faction only, with fitting variatins depending onfaction.. maybe even unique abilities per faction, and reasonably expensive. One reason I'm being careful with fuel is that the target audience for this is smaller gangs and smaller ships. It needs to be designed in such a way that the fuel capacity is not such that some crazy ship is needed to keep it running. Perhaps an additional use for the deep space transports. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:43:00 - [22] Mechanic suggestion: Fielded at Lagrange points and can be de-cloaked. You can put it anywhere on the grid, with one caveat. If you put it smack in the middle, it will be anchored solidly. If you put it 200km away, within a few hours it will "spiral out of stable orbit and destruct into the sun" aka despawn with all your stuff and your clone in it. You can re-deploy it back towards the center of the grid periodically should you chose or just let it float off if you need. You can put it dead center in some backwater system if you need an emergency log-off spot or a safe stash. This way, there is a reliable, albeit tedious, way to sweep your entire system of enemy structures. Or at least get the ones that aren't being managed actively. At the same time pilots can adapt the placement to meet their needs. They can make it not worth tracking down but higher maintenance or they can make it semi-permanent but easy to track down if somebody's looking. Make the lagrang points show up in solar system browser and let that be the end of it. As far as size, it'd be nice to see a few versions for different needs. There should definitely be one that fits inside a blockade runner with room for loot to spare that can house several ships. Sounds like we're talking about basically a cloaked tent of sorts. Much more compact than the ships and goods it stores. Just tacking on some more ideas, but say the black ops get ability to sling deep space transports around, have one sized appropriately for a gang doing that sort of thing.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:46:00 - [23] I really liked this idea when I read it in Jade's blog, yes I read the whole thing A suggestion would be perhaps you would have to switch off the cloak temporarily in order to enter or leave it and risk it getting found out so entering it, thus making it difficult to find but not impossible. Not that I'm totally against metagaming but I don't think it should be the sole tactic for a ruse. Plus forcing people to overcome an obstacle by having to metagame will create a lot of detractors to what is an excellent idea.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:46:00 - [24] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Perhaps an additional use for the deep space transports. Hell yes. Deep space transporters are much needed.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:50:00 - [25] Originally by: Amarr Holymight I really liked this idea when I read it in Jade's blog, yes I read the whole thing A suggestion would be perhaps you would have to switch off the cloak temporarily in order to enter or leave it and risk it getting found out so entering it, thus making it difficult to find but not impossible. Not that I'm totally against metagaming but I don't think it should be the sole tactic for a ruse. Plus forcing people to overcome an obstacle by having to metagame will create a lot of detractors to what is an excellent idea. Originally by: Darius JOHNSON No defenses per say, but also not findable except via infiltration (meta gaming) or if it goes offline due to fuel issues. Perhaps one can probe it out during a half hour period each day, as it refuels. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:54:00 - [26] Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/10/2008 19:54:43 If the concern is how you would get access to it, think of how a normal secret base works. If you never use it, it's virtually impossible to find, but if you've got a small city moving in and out every day, it's obvious. They're found by traffic analysis, not by searching every square inch of the planet. Make it so that use of the base is what allows it to be found - say, it takes a few minutes for the cloak to cover each new ship. If you only go there once a day, it's safe, but if you base a fleet out of it then any fool with a scan probe will find it easily. Originally by: Amarr Holymight I really liked this idea when I read it in Jade's blog Jade has a blog? Link please. ------------------ Herschel's Lottery #1 - Win a Kronos!
Baaldor Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 19:57:00 - [27] Edited by: Baaldor on 09/10/2008 19:57:26 Now this is the kind of ideas we need to help bring some fun back into the game again. Just keep it simple. Fewer moving parts means less shit can go wrong with it.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:05:00 - [28] Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 09/10/2008 20:05:04 Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Amarr Holymight I really liked this idea when I read it in Jade's blog, yes I read the whole thing A suggestion would be perhaps you would have to switch off the cloak temporarily in order to enter or leave it and risk it getting found out so entering it, thus making it difficult to find but not impossible. Not that I'm totally against metagaming but I don't think it should be the sole tactic for a ruse. Plus forcing people to overcome an obstacle by having to metagame will create a lot of detractors to what is an excellent idea. Originally by: Darius JOHNSON No defenses per say, but also not findable except via infiltration (meta gaming) or if it goes offline due to fuel issues. Perhaps one can probe it out during a half hour period each day, as it refuels. Yeh that part seemed like an afterthought when I read it, something that makes it probeable would be cool but I wouldn't leave it wholly out of player control when the cloak is offline.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:06:00 - [29] Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 09/10/2008 20:06:53 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 09/10/2008 19:54:43Jade has a blog? Link please. His blog for the CSM campaign jaysus
Thingul Sindacolla GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:09:00 - [30] I like the idea



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.