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 20:19:00 - [31] Originally by: Amarr Holymight 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. That's largely because Vio wanted the thing that way and I pretty much flat out copied and pasted what he said. I'll edit as ideas bubble up in thsi thread to reflect things better. 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!
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:19:00 - [32] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON 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. I agree, and therefore it doesnt need to stick to the std fuel types/costs we see in sov claiming towers, no reason why a full 2 weeks fuel shouldnt fit into a 5 Black Ops BS cargo holds, and the cloaking fuel be something again small but expenxive. Maybe a new set of fuels could be created, made from the pos reactions that industrialists do, thus making new in in game content for those guys also. I like this idea, but i do not like the ability for people to sit within it cloaked (this is part of my belief that cloaks should cost fuel to run, and therefore be limited in cloaking time overall). Stored ships cloaked good, small gangs cloaked wthout having to fit cloaks, not so good. Although could be funny if one is scanned down just outside cloak range, and a defensive fleet of hics are on the scene to lock everyone sat inside down. KIA EVE Home KIA in game Public Channel "KIA" KIA are Currently recruiting active PvP minded players. Contact Imperius Blackheart
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:25:00 - [33] Originally by: KIAEddZ I agree, and therefore it doesnt need to stick to the std fuel types/costs we see in sov claiming towers, no reason why a full 2 weeks fuel shouldnt fit into a 5 Black Ops BS cargo holds, and the cloaking fuel be something again small but expenxive. Maybe a new set of fuels could be created, made from the pos reactions that industrialists do, thus making new in in game content for those guys also. I like this idea, but i do not like the ability for people to sit within it cloaked (this is part of my belief that cloaks should cost fuel to run, and therefore be limited in cloaking time overall). Stored ships cloaked good, small gangs cloaked wthout having to fit cloaks, not so good. Although could be funny if one is scanned down just outside cloak range, and a defensive fleet of hics are on the scene to lock everyone sat inside down. There's also the possibility of the structure simply running out of gas and needing to be replaced, but I'm still up in the air as far as fuel/onlining issues. I am leaning towards Herschel's idea though regarding the probability being directly proportionate to the number of ships inside. 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!
Irida Mershkov War is Bliss	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:30:00 - [34] This sounds awesome, something that any small-gang/corp could use to their advantage.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.10.09 21:04:00 - [35] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON There's also the possibility of the structure simply running out of gas and needing to be replaced, but I'm still up in the air as far as fuel/onlining issues. I am leaning towards Herschel's idea though regarding the probability being directly proportionate to the number of ships inside. I'm opposed to fueling any structures in general. The idea is to make it require some upkeep and player interaction. Fueling makes it require harvesting ice etc and there are already too many things that make this game feel like work. Give it a timer. No need to have some fueling system to hide the fact that it's a timer. If you really need to hide it, that's why I came up with the Lagrange point idea. =)
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.10.09 21:36:00 - [36] Oh, what Ushra'Khan could do with these... I like the idea, but to be honest, I think there's balance issues. Depending on the 'drawbacks' you build into the design, it becomes an invulnerable base, or a worthless hunk of debris. I can't see much in the way of middle ground, unfortunately. Definitely something worth thinking about, though. -- Becq Starforged Ushra'Khan The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Mika Katon The Greater Goon GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 21:45:00 - [37] Maybe instead of fuel, cause continual damage to the structure, based on the mass of ships within its cloak radius. (More ship mass = more strain on the cloaking field.) Prevent it from being repaired while anchored. Give it a 10-20 minute anchoring and unanchoring delay as well. Finally, only allow non-capital ships to refit at it. The mass-based degradation will reduce its viability for concealing a large gang for a long period of time, but still allow it to be used for that purpose in a desperate situation. The degradation rate would be tricky to get right, but I think the mass-based method simplifies the process. The degradation-while-used system prevents the need for tedious fueling, while simultaneously providing a limit to use, and an incentive to spend some time out of the bubble. It also allows use of the station as a long-term rally point, as it will only degrade while being actively used. The anchoring/unanchoring delay and the inability to repair it while anchored creates a window of opportunity for attack, the window increasing in frequency the more the structure is used (due to the degradation). The "no capitals" restriction will stop capitals from using it as an emergency cloak-fitting stop. (Also, the huge mass of capital ships would cause the structure to melt like the Wicked Witch.) I think this is a good compromise between all the points of contention brought up, but I may have missed some. Thoughts?
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.10.09 21:52:00 - [38] Oh god, please no more fueling and anchoring bullshit. It is designed for a small group so let's make it easy to use shall we? I would change it: -Pirate base is only anchorable by Black ops -Lasts for 14 days, then explodes. No fuel. -Black ops able to cyno/portal to each Pirate base like a covert cyno generator I like the 500m cloaking radius so that blobs cannot use it effectively. Thumbs up from me. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Everir Entar Legion Du Lys	Posted - 2008.10.09 21:53:00 - [39] Yep!
Tevlent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 21:55:00 - [40] This is a good idea.

Vio Geraci GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:19:00 - [41] Edited by: Vio Geraci on 09/10/2008 22:21:29 Originally by: Vaal Erit Oh god, please no more fueling and anchoring bullshit. It is designed for a small group so let's make it easy to use shall we? I would change it: -Pirate base is only anchorable by Black ops -Lasts for 14 days, then explodes. No fuel. -Black ops able to cyno/portal to each Pirate base like a covert cyno generator I like the 500m cloaking radius so that blobs cannot use it effectively. Thumbs up from me. Fueling and transportation are an important part of the game, man. They aren't going to just phase it out, and this is something that would obviously require fuel. That said, your idea about a finite duration would probably work, as well. It would be kind of neat to be able to generate a black-ops cyno network inside of your enemies' territory. I'm not sure it would be unbalanced, either. The local inhabitants can already move any ship around, willy-nilly, so why shouldn't hostiles be able to move their stealth bombers and what have you around, with a similar degree of effectiveness.
westyx Gallente Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:20:00 - [42] Originally by: Vaal Erit Oh god, please no more fueling and anchoring bullshit. It is designed for a small group so let's make it easy to use shall we? I would change it: -Pirate base is only anchorable by Black ops -Lasts for 14 days, then explodes. No fuel. -Black ops able to cyno/portal to each Pirate base like a covert cyno generator I like the 500m cloaking radius so that blobs cannot use it effectively. Thumbs up from me. I like this. You deploy it, and after 14 days it disintegrates.
Jack Gates GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:25:00 - [43] I like the idea, especially if a new reaction is needed to fuel the station. If you pop a hauler full of the stuff, you'll know to wait while they send for another. It'd make the station easier to probe out, especially if the shield drops while refueling. Since it's basically a GSC with a small cloaking field designed to be deployed in hostile space, I think it should be able to run for two or three days without needing an outside source of fuel. As far as cloaking nearby ships goes, I think the field should be able to hold, at most, a hauler-sized ship or a few frigates, which should be able to afk. That lagrange idea someone posted is awful.
DaiTengu GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:33:00 - [44] Edited by: DaiTengu on 09/10/2008 22:34:38 this is a p. good idea, and would make 0.0 warfare a bit more fun/exciting. I'm assuming it'd be possible to anchor these in mission running lowsec systems as well? I do think a maximum on how many of these can be in a system is a good idea. Either a hard-cap of say, 5, or something a bit more complex like the inability to anchor the structure if it's in a certain range of another object. For example: another pirate base, either your's or someone else's may "interfere" with it's ability to online. Perhaps it can't be anchored too close to a planet/moon/gate either. Alternatively, it HAS to be anchored within a certain range of a planet, with only one per planet allowed. Granted, this would make them a bit easier to probe out. Don't mind me, I'm just thinking as I type here.
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:35:00 - [45] Originally by: DaiTengu this is a p. good idea, and would make 0.0 warfare a bit more fun/exciting. I'm assuming it'd be possible to anchor these in mission running lowsec systems as well? I do think a hard cap on how many of these can be in a system. Either a hard-cap of say, 5, or something a bit more complex like the inability to anchor the structure if it's in a certain range of another object. For example: another pirate base, either your's or someone else's may "interfere" with it's ability to online. Perhaps it can't be anchored too close to a planet/moon/gate either. Alternatively, it HAS to be anchored within a certain range of a planet, with only one per planet allowed. Granted, this would make them a bit easier to probe out. My concern in this case is that friendly alliances would occupy all of the available space to prevent hostiles from taking advantage of these.
UncleSam83 Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:38:00 - [46] Was thinking about the aspect of probing the thing out. What if you could probe this thing out in the same way you do with exploration sites, but make it alot less precise and require multiple probes across the whole system. Gradually triangulating the spot down until you got within a maximum of say 150km, this would take time and a whole lot of effort too do. Maybe increasing the time needed to run scan probes significantly. You'd then end up with a hit that you could observe the surrounding space from. Would be like fishing, you sit there in your cov-ops, somewhere within 150km you know there is one of these things. You wait for those few seconds when a ship appears from or goes into the hidden base as it comes in or out of warp. If you blink you might miss it but if you don't, You've found the bastards now...
Vio Geraci Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:41:00 - [47] Originally by: UncleSam83 Was thinking about the aspect of probing the thing out. What if you could probe this thing out in the same way you do with exploration sites, but make it alot less precise and require multiple probes across the whole system. Gradually triangulating the spot down until you got within a maximum of say 150km, this would take time and a whole lot of effort too do. Maybe increasing the time needed to run scan probes significantly. You'd then end up with a hit that you could observe the surrounding space from. Would be like fishing, you sit there in your cov-ops, somewhere within 150km you know there is one of these things. You wait for those few seconds when a ship appears from or goes into the hidden base as it comes in or out of warp. If you blink you might miss it but if you don't, You've found the bastards now... Anything that allowed them to be probed out, no matter how arduous, without the users of the pirate bases screwing up in some way, would make these useless for asymmetrical warfare. That is, smaller groups waging war against larger groups.
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:45:00 - [48] This idea is in the same vein as small anchorables, which has already been escalated and replies given from CCP. I can't support something entering enemy territory that is essentially unfindable (if it's unprobable, its unfindable). A place for ships to hide etc...its ripe grounds for unbalancing warfare massively in favour of uses...eg, anchor a few in one system (or in neighbouring systems), hide x ships at each (safe building up of forces that can't be found), then attack with a large fleet that was undetectable. If its gonna eneter tha game, it should have realistic mechanics that are congruent with other features. Being unprobable isn't realistic... Take care, Arithron Better to be a live dog than a dead lion...
Yenrich Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:47:00 - [49] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Perhaps an additional use for the deep space transports. Hell yes. Deep space transporters are much needed. so true
UncleSam83 Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:51:00 - [50] Edited by: UncleSam83 on 09/10/2008 22:54:58 Originally by: Vio Geraci Anything that allowed them to be probed out, no matter how arduous, without the users of the pirate bases screwing up in some way, would make these useless for asymmetrical warfare. That is, smaller groups waging war against larger groups. Ok, say you incorporated my idea into the probing ideals of the OP, you can only do this at certain times, maybe during the 30minutes of refueling, maybe you could make it more susceptible to probing the more ships are hiding in it. The more strain the cloak is under, the closer hit your probes would get, say the closest would be 100km, furthest could be 5000km. This means that if you have a pirate base that people are using constantly the more risk you have of being triangulated I think the best part of this comes down to the fact you have to finally pinpoint this thing by eye, you gotta judge exactly where you saw something come out of it and then fly towards that spot. You misjudge it, you could fly right past it by. You bring people in to sweep the area? The guys inside get to sit there and wait, watching people buzz about looking for them, getting ready to defend or ambush the hunters

Break Stuff GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:53:00 - [51] This is a great idea. As long as there are mechanics that make it useful for small gangs, without making it useful for large fleets, I support this.
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:54:00 - [52] Originally by: NanDe YaNen Originally by: Darius JOHNSON There's also the possibility of the structure simply running out of gas and needing to be replaced, but I'm still up in the air as far as fuel/onlining issues. I am leaning towards Herschel's idea though regarding the probability being directly proportionate to the number of ships inside. I'm opposed to fueling any structures in general. The idea is to make it require some upkeep and player interaction. Fueling makes it require harvesting ice etc and there are already too many things that make this game feel like work. Give it a timer. No need to have some fueling system to hide the fact that it's a timer. If you really need to hide it, that's why I came up with the Lagrange point idea. =) Player interaction, wether its f1-f8 or fuelling poses, wether its mundane or exciting, is the backbone of Eve. Eve isnt free, it takes effort, co ordination, time to achive anyhting. Timers defeat that fundemantal ideal imho. KIA EVE Home KIA in game Public Channel "KIA" KIA are Currently recruiting active PvP minded players. Contact Imperius Blackheart
Mara Devortex	Posted - 2008.10.09 23:04:00 - [53] Wow something new creative and cool with a dash of wtf sneakiness...i like it.
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.09 23:10:00 - [54] Sounds good, but needs much more storage space. I can fill a carrier's cargo worth of loot in no time. The cargo size works if you're using it as a forward PVP base, but as a ninja-ratting HQ it needs much more. Otherwise, it sounds good.
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.10.09 23:43:00 - [55] Originally by: KIAEddZ Player interaction, wether its f1-f8 or fuelling poses, wether its mundane or exciting, is the backbone of Eve. Eve isnt free, it takes effort, co ordination, time to achive anyhting. Timers defeat that fundemantal ideal imho. Mundane shouldn't be the backbone of anything I'm paying for as a service. POS fueling is...the most player interaction I've ever had with logistics is helping corp mine ice. There's enough coordination to be had with just getting all the goods together for PvP ops out in deep space. Ships are a disposable. We don't really need more disposables, especially ones that don't contribute to why we play the game. You mine ice. Throw it in a rabbit hole. It's gone. That is the reality of fuel. Countless pod-pilot-hours of Eve are spent moving gas from production sources to sinks with no higher purpose. Sure, there's a market, but everything that can be produced has a market. Moar ships. Moar pew pew. No more gas.
Fats McFatterson GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.10.10 00:06:00 - [56] Supporting dis. I would set one up somewhere obnoxious like PR-
Bunyip Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.10.10 00:13:00 - [57] Hey Darius, Nice idea. I had an idea a while ago that might dovetail nicely with this one. It's on my webpage. It's not completely the same, as it's still probeable, but it also has some limited defenses. Tell me what you think, plz. -Bunyip "May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
Thair Amarr Magellanic Itg GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 00:32:00 - [58] Edited by: Thair on 10/10/2008 00:33:53 I love the idea, but I think a BlackOps BS should be required to maintain it with something like a warfare link module. Have the BlackOps BS Capacitor maintain the shield. When you activate the module from outside the cloak it will take half your capacitor and regenerate the shield for X hours. This gives you a chance to both probe the Base by probing the BlackOps BS fueling it but also stops the attacker from having to bring fuel in. Fueling stuff sucks. Only allow a Blackops BS carry one of these by having it be a launchable item from the Module that only a BlackOps BS can fit. That would put more of those ships at risk and have a larger risk/reward to deploying one of these.
Zibster	Posted - 2008.10.10 02:20:00 - [59] So you want a free cloak on all your ships without any drawback of fitting one? If so, than very big no... If you want a ship maintenance array, and a GSC that cannot be probed by themselves, but do not provide any protection for ships and can be anchored anywhere in system...then maybe. The most protection I would be willing to support, would be something like a dead space like protection (decreasing chance of being probed out like in a mission spot).
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.10.10 02:46:00 - [60] Originally by: Zibster So you want a free cloak on all your ships without any drawback of fitting one? If so, than very big no... If you want a ship maintenance array, and a GSC that cannot be probed by themselves, but do not provide any protection for ships and can be anchored anywhere in system...then maybe. The most protection I would be willing to support, would be something like a dead space like protection (decreasing chance of being probed out like in a mission spot). What if it only cloaked unoccupied ships, sort of as an impromptu hangar? For that matter, you could even give it actual hangar space, although not a lot.



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.