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

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.

DaiTengu Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 02:56:00 - [61] Edited by: DaiTengu on 10/10/2008 02:56:17 Originally by: Vio Geraci My concern in this case is that friendly alliances would occupy all of the available space to prevent hostiles from taking advantage of these. I see your point. These things would then need to be expensive enough so that wouldn't be a viable option. What I'm really concerned about is lowsec being riddled with these things, where every pirate corp has a bunch in each system. edit: :page3:
Dontcheck Availability GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 03:05:00 - [62] Edited by: Dontcheck Availability on 10/10/2008 03:08:34 Perhaps to prevent people from putting up too many of these things there could be a limit to how many one character can anchor, which would be determined by some silly, high-rank skill. So a maximum of five per character. edit: And the skillbook should be expensive. ____________________
Elpoc	Posted - 2008.10.10 04:54:00 - [63] /signed
Mael DeVries Hobbit Enterprises GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 06:13:00 - [64] Sounds awesome. I'd enjoy both using these and scanning them out.
Cory Trevor Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.10.10 10:21:00 - [65] Edited by: Cory Trevor on 10/10/2008 10:21:19 The idea of a supply depot behind enemy lines is a nice one, but being cloaked while you're using it is just too prone to abuse. I think if you remove the whole cloaking thing, it works well. Make the structure itself unscannable/probable, but no cloaking while using it, which means you don't hang out there unless you want to be probed out and destroyed. It'd keep usage to quieter times and less of something you'd be able to use during actual battles. Without the cloaking stuff I'd support it in a heartbeat, but so long as it can be used as a place to hide, can't say I like it.
Molock Saronen	Posted - 2008.10.10 10:24:00 - [66] Originally by: Thair 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. I like both the original idea and this addition. No fueling needed, but an extra role for black ops. Nice!
fuze Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.10.10 11:10:00 - [67] Like the general idea since its fresh. Its pretty much to hide it since you always see who's in local and whenever someone has their ship outside the cloaking range you can scan it in 20 sec to find the grid. And then its just a matter of waiting in a cloaker to spot where ships go. What about having a pirate structure in a gas cloud or asteroid belt which makes it undectable by probing but also receiving damage from the cloud or belt. Then you have to rep the structure back up and and ships in there also have to be repped or they simply explode in time. (a couple of days?)
Drake Draconis Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.10 16:06:00 - [68] Originally by: DaiTengu Edited by: DaiTengu on 10/10/2008 02:56:17 Originally by: Vio Geraci My concern in this case is that friendly alliances would occupy all of the available space to prevent hostiles from taking advantage of these. I see your point. These things would then need to be expensive enough so that wouldn't be a viable option. What I'm really concerned about is lowsec being riddled with these things, where every pirate corp has a bunch in each system. edit: :page3: Like I Was hinting at with the distance requirements... you could have one for being unable to park one within a certain radius of other cloaked POS's... something like within 10 AU's or something... maybe 5.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 17:58:00 - [69] I would enjoy this even more if those inside the cloak of the pirate base didn't show up in local.
Chencherra Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2008.10.10 18:58:00 - [70] Sounds interesting.

Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 19:06:00 - [71] Originally by: Cory Trevor Edited by: Cory Trevor on 10/10/2008 10:21:19 The idea of a supply depot behind enemy lines is a nice one, but being cloaked while you're using it is just too prone to abuse. I think if you remove the whole cloaking thing, it works well. Make the structure itself unscannable/probable, but no cloaking while using it, which means you don't hang out there unless you want to be probed out and destroyed. It'd keep usage to quieter times and less of something you'd be able to use during actual battles. Without the cloaking stuff I'd support it in a heartbeat, but so long as it can be used as a place to hide, can't say I like it. Yeh I know what you mean this cloaking thing is a bit far fetched, if you made it unprobable/unscannable then people would be less likely to abuse it. In fact you should make them bright pink and call it a bungadoo there's a new thread for you.
Commander BlackJack The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.10.10 20:01:00 - [72] /signed
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 20:56:00 - [73] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Concept This could work if you also had a POS module that allowed the defenders to scan for these types of POS. Make the scan take a significant amount of time[2-3 days], and give the cloaked POS owner a timer so that he knows when the scan is going to end. This way you can clear old POS structures, and the aggressors have to keep moving their operation around. Otherwise I don't see it being a reasonable idea
Orb Lati ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.10 21:00:00 - [74] The only suggestion i would add to this is alternative method for finding these structures in space. Have these structures show up as "unknown" anomalies through exploration, exactly the same as a combat site hit, but give them a very low signature where a very determined prober may need to spend several hours (6+?) to scan a well placed structure down. This way you introduce a risk that a general explorer might get very lucky (or unlucky?) while looking for exploration sites. It gives a determined hostile the tools to track down over time a structure. And it means that the person deploying the structure has to be very careful of where they deploy your covert base to ensure its more than 5AU away from any celestial (so to be outside onboard ship scanner range).
Marchant LaCroix Ma-Ven Industries	Posted - 2008.10.10 21:52:00 - [75] Both the arguements re fueling and disintegration don't have to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps the way to work it would be you can get it anchored but it won't online without a new fuel. Make it small and yes, expensive (did like the idea industrialist make it from reactions. Let's get everyone involved. Perhaps an 8 moon mineral reaction?) and then you fill the structure before onlining. This will be your first and only time to fill it... If you fill it to max it will last for the maximum duration otherwise it'll pop out of existence when the fuel goes out?
Suseki Koi GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 22:09:00 - [76] This sounds like a good idea, it's worth a discussion.
AdmiralSexyPants GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.10 22:38:00 - [77] I can agree with this. I have no honor :(
Parid GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.10.11 01:51:00 - [78] Sounds like fun
Saracena Infinatech	Posted - 2008.10.11 02:18:00 - [79] 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 didn't really like the idea until I saw this. Consumable/no fueling = excellent. Don't like Minmatar space? Put yourself on the contact list for hisec hidden asteroid belt bookmarks [currently operating in: Kador, Derelik, Domain] 2.5 per small 4.5 per medium 6.5 per large
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.11 03:34:00 - [80] be annoying as hell but very evil While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.

Kasheem Cetanes coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.11 03:42:00 - [81] There is a fundamental problem: it can be abused by squatters and farmers. Basically this will make it to farmers can, with out fear, drop one of these and not need to fit a cloak, and be invulnerable. I mean, catching farmers is already hard enough. So I would want something included to make this not just, a ratting station.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.11 06:45:00 - [82] Originally by: Kasheem Cetanes There is a fundamental problem: it can be abused by squatters and farmers. Basically this will make it to farmers can, with out fear, drop one of these and not need to fit a cloak, and be invulnerable. I mean, catching farmers is already hard enough. So I would want something included to make this not just, a ratting station. Man I get sick of hearing how farmers will use this and that to their advantage as a point against any good ideas being brought forward. It's a really bad case cutting off your nose to spite your face why would you let farmers dictate how you play the game(rhetorical).
SloMoJoe GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.11 09:41:00 - [83] So basically a magic Giant Secure Container that cloaks ships around it and allows me to refit? Hell ya where can I get 50 of these? I would prefer it not to be a cloak shield (if you want to cloak, fit a cloak) but would support an anti-probe shield with an extremely tiny initial signature radius that increased as more /larger ships were "protected". This will provide small groups of players, who want to make a limited break into 0.0, a viable option of doing so. To wage asymmetric war you would simply use more of these devices to protect larger groups than could be safely accommodated by a single unit. If the unit functioned like a GSC in terms of being able to assemble it in station, fill it with a few days supply of fuel, throw it in an industrial or blockade runner and then anchor it up... that would be cool. Keeping the combined fuel and item storage amount under the size of a regular GSC prevents it from becoming another hauler's exploit as they double up on fuel / minerals. I like the idea of not being able to anchor it anywhere and would definitely favor at least a 5000 KM no-anchor zone to prevent pinheads from putting it off gates and thus using it as a gate / station camp mechanism. I don't think any other anchoring restrictions should apply other than the ones already in place for anchoring GSC's. This is my eve online siganture. There are many like it but this one is mine.
TimMc The Motley Crew	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:11:00 - [84] I would go back to 0.0 for this. Would also make using black ops easier. You can jump to a system and refuel at the cloaked POS.
Kasheem Cetanes coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.11 14:11:00 - [85] Originally by: Amarr Holymight Originally by: Kasheem Cetanes There is a fundamental problem: it can be abused by squatters and farmers. Basically this will make it to farmers can, with out fear, drop one of these and not need to fit a cloak, and be invulnerable. I mean, catching farmers is already hard enough. So I would want something included to make this not just, a ratting station. Man I get sick of hearing how farmers will use this and that to their advantage as a point against any good ideas being brought forward. It's a really bad case cutting off your nose to spite your face why would you let farmers dictate how you play the game(rhetorical). Allow me to respond to your rhetorical question. How could you change the concept so it isn't super effective fro ratting. answer: design the anchorable so once you enter it, you are only cloaked for so long, say 5 mins, then once you leave the structure, you cannot cloak for long enough to be probed out if you don't move. This would still allow for this spot to be a pounce, and place to refit with out being a hiding spot where you can't be probed. Just an example of how you could make it not as beneficial to farmers.
Amarr Holymight Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:50:00 - [86] Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 11/10/2008 16:50:00 Heh Kasheen I'm sure the flaws would get ironed out eventually like everything else so why break a format? ;)
Irongut M'8'S Frontal Impact	Posted - 2008.10.13 06:53:00 - [87] I like it. I can already think of lots of ways to use it offensively and defensively. -- The future is Black. Brace for Impact!
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.10.13 13:44:00 - [88] 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 one ... but 14 days is a lot imo .. 7-10 is enough. the general concept is OK, but it needs some tweaking still (like better scanning options to start with). --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Feriluce Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.13 15:26:00 - [89] Sounds interesting.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.13 16:54:00 - [90] :snypa: x2

Biscuit0 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:14:00 - [91] A concept I can get behind.
Marlona Sky Caldari Astroglide X	Posted - 2008.10.14 03:56:00 - [92] Lots of 'thumbs up' from goons to a goon idea. So you know this is a horrible idea. THUMBS DOWN !!!
islador	Posted - 2008.10.14 05:12:00 - [93] supported! One catch though, I'm tired of bringing down a tower's shields and not being to un-anchor the *****. If i somehow stumble across one of this pirate hideouts/fobs, i want to be able to bookmark it, grab a hauler and pull this sucker to a station, hack it and loot whatevers inside!
Saraah Leeown	Posted - 2008.10.14 10:05:00 - [94] Originally by: Marlona Sky Lots of 'thumbs up' from goons to a goon idea. So you know this is a horrible idea. THUMBS DOWN !!! Stupid reason not to vote for something that is actually a cool idea.
Cornette Black Screen of Death HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:25:00 - [95] Excellent idea. Gets my support.
Suitonia interimo	Posted - 2008.10.14 12:38:00 - [96] This idea is awesome.
Marlona Sky Caldari Astroglide X	Posted - 2008.10.15 03:06:00 - [97] Originally by: Saraah Leeown Originally by: Marlona Sky Lots of 'thumbs up' from goons to a goon idea. So you know this is a horrible idea. THUMBS DOWN !!! Stupid reason not to vote for something that is actually a cool idea. Its goons, what good can come from it?
Miriyaka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 01:03:00 - [98] Fueling sounds fine. The only other limitation this thing needs to be found is a very small cloaking radius. A small group of us have used GSCs like this in the past, and it's amazingly how easily we've been probed out at them several times, despite only being uncloaked near them for several seconds. A determined enemy will be able to easily capitalize on mistakes such as ships drifting outside the field, or momentary disruptions in the cloak that might happen when a new ship enters it or when too much ship mass is present inside it. Perhaps allow probes to narrow it to within snoop range (5AU) while it's cloaked, so that it is possible to pick up ships when (not if) they make these mistakes. A lazy enemy should not be handed their locations on a silver platter at X interval just because they have Sov level Y. Just as the anchoring corp/alliance should have to work a bit to keep them running, you should have to work a bit and exercise a bit of patience and thought to find them. Carrier-level capacity with no SMA seems balanced, as does the ability to refit. GSC capacity is rather small, and would be filled by any normal successful PVP operations within a day or two. Remember that this is a game, and requiring fueling interactions on a 24hr basis would be unrealistic and make them too vulnerable. Sometimes people don't play absolutely every single day. 3-4 days is a realistic fueling timeframe. Alliance-wide covert cyno beacon is an excellent idea, and would let a determined small group set up a network of these in enemy space to quickly move around with Black Ops. One question I'm not sure about is accessibility; making their location knowable by anyone in the alliance seems like it might limit their usefulness, given how easy it is to simply get a spy character into most alliances. On the other hand, being only accessible by bookmark doesn't sound so great either. Maybe link their visibility on the solar system map to corp roles?
Cain Fortea	Posted - 2008.10.24 07:10:00 - [99] Edited by: Cain Fortea on 24/10/2008 07:10:23 Or maybe another way to go about it, is it to make it a module that can only be fit by a blackops BS. You hit the module, and 10 minutes later your BS is transformed into this pirate base and your pod is ejected. Anyone with the skill to activate the module can re-enter and turn off the module. Give it a cycle time of a couple of days so you still have interaction, with some small volume, high expense fuel that powers it. I like the idea of the base itself not being probable. But as ships "dock" with it, it's scan res goes up. Doing it this way gives the enemy who's space you are in the oportunity of probing out and stealing the ships/material, instead of just blowing it up.
Ar'tee DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.24 11:30:00 - [100] 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. How about simply making it impossible to deploy them if your alliance has sov (any level) in that system. And make them only accessible to the alliance that placed it, so that you couldn't use a "fake neutral" corp to place it in your own space.

Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.10.24 16:05:00 - [101] Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 24/10/2008 16:04:59 similar idea : http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=741515 basically I do not care about name (pirate base sounds cool), or detailed stats, but I'm sure Eve needs this kind of structure. Eve pretends to be a sandbox, but we have only a few possibilities to exists in 0.0 space. Most oft them require huge power blocks and insane logistics. This do not feel like a sandbox at all.
Agramen	Posted - 2008.10.24 16:17:00 - [102] Let me preface this. Fueling POSs sucks. Srsly. It's a black hole that eats time and isk better spent elsewhere, having fun. With that, I had an idea on balancing fueling vs the infinite unbalanced utility of such a thing. Give it a tiny fuel bay, that could be easily, cheaply filled by something like a Black Ops or two. The fuel would power a "long range sensor dampening / cloaking field" for 30 days of dormancy. While dormant it'd be insanely hard to probe out (not impossible though), and be a visual shimmer / distortion, similar to a cloaked ship, but bigger. Maybe make it completely un-probable 55 minutes out of an hour; It'd be a "sensor anomaly" that appears and disappears at random. To use it, you'd fly up to it, switch it to an "active mode" and it's fuel requirements would increase tenfold. When active, you can access whatever services the thing provides and it'll cloak any small ships within a 5km bubble or so. Hell, instead of 10x fuel costs, tie the increased fuel needs while active to the amount of mass it has to cloak. Give the transition from dormant to active a one to five minute warm up time too, so the quick and the smart could probe you out, and the slow, stupid, or lazy get caught trying to abuse this thing. If kept fairly cheap and disposable, this would give small operations a means to survive in deep space by stealth rather than raw force of arms, or give larger groups more options for outposts. One other thing of note, making something that's only discoverable / killable by metagaming means is not only a bad precedent to set, but very unhealthy for any game.
Pirc Balar Destruction Reborn	Posted - 2008.10.25 05:42:00 - [103] Edited by: Pirc Balar on 25/10/2008 05:46:54 Originally by: Thair 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. I think this is a very interesting idea. Perhaps one way to connect this to the small scale gangs idea is to make an explicit role for the Black Ops ship. Perhaps the mini-structure could be cloaked as described, but for it to 'hide' vessels a Black Ops ship with a specialized gang module would be needed. Such a set up could create another way to reveal the hidden ships (take out the Black Ops ship) rather than relaying only on meta-gaming.
Ris Dnalor Ex Cruoris Libertas	Posted - 2008.11.09 07:43:00 - [104] outstanding idea
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.09 14:04:00 - [105] Support the concept, want to discuss details. Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.11.09 23:52:00 - [106] Edited by: Kadoes Khan on 09/11/2008 23:51:52 The general concept is interesting but there's a few things... Is there a way for the defending corp of detecting and stopping one of these from going up within a reasonable time frame? If you can just pop one up without recourse that could prove to be over the line. I'd also like to see if there is a set limit on how long the cloak can last. Being able to refuel it for as long as you please would create some problems. There's enough complaints about lone AFK cloakers sitting in a system to scare people away, what's going to happen when they know there's a base somewhere in the system that can have a bunch of black ops/recon ships just jump into at any time? If you add a limit say once per week the cloak dies for 12hrs, or perhaps a system wide notification once per 1 hour about when it will go down and only go down for 1-2hrs so it could be defended reasonably and not have people sitting around for 12hrs with their fingers up their butts. During that time it becomes probable and destructible this would allow people to counter them but give at least 1 week for harassment. You mention metagame espionage as a way of countering this which I very much disagree with especially considering your target for people that will use this are smaller corps that usually operate in very tight nit groups that never recruit. Also making these same people who likely do not have the logistics capability to possibly make daily trips to maintain is simply weird. It seems made for the "elite" of huge corps to use not really for small corps at all. I think you need to flesh out the whole vision more and what it's for. If it's for small corps then you need to make it simple to maintain but short lived so you only do general greifing ops and not staging a prolonged offensive(which I think you could with the current iteration) that would be likely from most merc corps. If it's for big corps then fuel costs should be extremely high to drain resources at a high rate so that it forces you to commit a non-negligible amount of resources to kicking people in the shins. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
ISpydeRI	Posted - 2008.11.11 00:57:00 - [107] Edited by: ISpydeRI on 11/11/2008 01:02:39 How about make it only appear on scans, both directional and probe, and uncloack to refuel for like 5 minutes at varying intevals, maximum four times minimum once, a day at random, that way some jerk can't just see it on scan and have some on come and probe it then next day or when convenient that day. As for the problem with things being cloaked inside it: simple! Give it like 7500-10,000 m3 corp hangar, have it have a 600,000 ship maint bay, and make it take like .75m worth of strontium clathrates per day. Ships that warped to it could use their cloaks in its special like say 12km bubble, so they could maintain covertness if they weren't idiots. Also I like these names: Dark Blood Covert Fleet Support Substructure (instead of superstructure because its relatively small) Ofcourse you would also have the different pirate names there, and maybe you would only be able to get them through faction rat drops or loyalty points for 0.0 NPCs?
Siebenthal	Posted - 2008.11.11 02:00:00 - [108] I'm loving the concept but not the details. No ships should be cloaked while using it, only the base itself. Giving a group of ships an autocloaked safespot is too much. The fueling requirement should not be materially based. What about giving the Black Ops and the Blockade Runner new roles that enable them to interface their capacitors to the bases and reload them? The bases should be capable of allowing a ship to refit as long as the base is exposed during the ship's refitting. No defenses...no reinforcement period. If it gets found it dies. The technology that allows that thing to sit there cloaked should be expensive.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.