open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked [idea] 0.0 Small gang warfare objectives: player created incursions
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.29 17:05:00 - [1]
 

Introduction
For a long time, small gangs have had limited ability to influence large scale political shifts. This diminishes the viability of this type of warfare and reduces the type of game play, which is unfortunate. With the right objectives and incentive, I believe this can be improved.

Definition
For the purpose of this idea, I will use the following definition:
- small gang warfare: warfare conducted by a gang of between 5 and 20 characters in sub-capital ships.
- raiding gang: non-sov holder, invading sov space
- defender gang: sov holder, defending sov space

The problem
With the large amount of hit points that station services, sovereignty structures and POS modules have, small gangs will struggle to be effective in disrupting / destroying those. Personally, I do believe this is acceptable, and that type of warfare should remain in the realm of big fleet combat.

What is lacking however is small scale objectives that such a gang can accomplish. Some will argue that small gangs can harass ratters, but the reality is different. One way to harass ratters is by destroying their ships, but chances of accomplishing this is actually quite small. The second way is to prevent them from ratting by your continued presence. However, this tactic actually rewards inactivity instead of activity, does not result in fun for either party and only lasts for as long as the raiding gang is willing to stay put. As soon as they leave, the only thing they have accomplished is wasting everybody's time.

Solution: player-created incursions
The core idea is that the game should incentivise people to defend their space. In the case of small gang warfare, people shouldn't fear loosing sovereignty or structures, but they should feel some effect that lasts beyond the time the eaiding gang is in system. My proposal would be to reduce the ratting value of a system along somewhat similar lines of Sansha Incursions.

Player incursion game mechanic
When a raiding party visits a ratting system, they would anchor a small module. Let's for now can it a Player Incursion Device (PID). A PID can be anchored anywhere in system but at least an X amount of space away from any celestial. This prevents a POS from ever being able to support a raiding party. It also makes docking games or gate games impossible. The module would be a bit like an SBU, but a lot smaller to carry (so it can fit a standard combat vessels hold) and cheaper, but also easier to kill. This module would also take a lot shorter to anchor and unanchor.

As soon as a PID is anchored in space, a warpable beacon becomes available to everybody in space. When it is anchored, the PID can be onlined, which again is much shorter then an SBU. As soon as the PID is online, the PID can start to negatively effect space. The rats slowly loose value, and the effectiveness (tank / damage) of all player ships (both raiding and defending) decreases.

The speed at which the changes occur depends on the time the raiding party has ships on grid within 100km of the PID. When there are no raiding ships on grid, nothing changes. Also, cloaked ships or even ships that can cloak but aren't do not count towards this number. There is also a maximum number of ships that effect the speed, so that bringing bigger gangs does no speed up the process anymore. (It could even be conceivable to have different level PIDs for different levels of effectiveness and other parameters). After the PID has reached its maximum effectiveness, it can be off-lined and unanchored again. After this has happened, they can move on, but leave the negative effects in that system in place.

The defending party can stop the negative effects from occurring by chasing the raiding party away from the PID and / or destroying it. If they do not destroy the PID before it gets offlined, the negative effect can be overcome by ratting for strongly reduced Isk or by a long and slow time out.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.29 17:08:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: DaDutchDude on 29/03/2011 17:22:34
Balancing
This is quite a complicated mechanic, but it does have recognizable features from both the current sov system and the new Sansha incursions. The balancing of this will be quite tough though.

The general concept is that it should promote small gang warfare where sov holders actually have a reason to undock and fight an invading gang instead of just waiting it out, without it becoming an easy way to grief people for raiding parties. This means that a lot of things need to be right.
- price, size and EHP for PID
- timers for anchor / unanchor and online / offline of PID
- timer for 0 effect to max effect and level of negative effect for defenders
- max distance from PID for defenders
- restrictions on ships counting towards effect
- etc.

None of this is set in stone, none of this should favor raider or defender too much. The central point is that it should reward raiders for actually putting themselves in harms way (so no AFK cloaker) while rewarding defenders for responding quickly and actually coming out fighting.

One aspect of this that some people might have trouble with is the fact that it could lead to 'time zone harassment', where raiders only visit defender systems when they have low activity. I personally this that this shouldn't be a problem, because this game is a 24/7 game, and people just using a system part-time should be incentivised to have round-the-clock coverage. People will not loose sov, so the effect, while noticable, it not catastrophic.

Conclusion
Player-created incurions could be a mechanic to promote PVP activity or (when defenders lack the will or ability to undock and defend) at least give raiders meaningful objectives they can accomplish through small gang warfare, something that is currently greatly lacking.

Agent302
Posted - 2011.03.29 21:34:00 - [3]
 

I like this idea.

It would allow small gangs to have a noticeable effect on a particular system, beyond just camping or AFK cloaking.

There were a few questions that came to mind:

  • size, cost, and EHP roughly equal to a large T2 bubble? more or less? what do you think?
  • the raiding gang would also be subject to whatever de-buffs the PID applied to the system, correct?

  • what stops the defenders from using the "MORE" tactic to repel the raiders?

  • would the PID effect jump bridges or the ability to light cynos?

  • [*]force recons and cov ops frigates would not count toward the ship total, understandably getting rid of the afk cloaky gang, but almost any ship can fit a cloak, would they be disallowed if they have a cloak fitted and ok if not? not sure how that would work out.


Overall, good idea. I hope CCP sees it.

Victoria Nidame Aivo
Posted - 2011.03.29 22:18:00 - [4]
 

Bump for a great idea. Would be nice to see some more features added for small gang's to partake in and still accomplish things on the larger scale.

Raid'En
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:11:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Raid''En on 29/03/2011 23:14:22
seems like an interesting concept, i like it :)

there's something missing here however ;
what's the interestest of the attacker doing this ? only having opportunity to kill ships ? nothing earned by holding the space for a moment ?

also if having the effect staying after they left is defenders didn't done anything is okay, you need to have a max time ; after xx hours / days effect begin to decrease and finnally disapear.

also i wonder if having an different effect when this happen would be interesting ;
like if you do it, and noone hinder you the negative effect only affect your enemy and not you, meaning for example it could become an advantage on the field, while fighting on a space that have sov but no one really live in
ex ; you go to a quiet system, activate the thing. no one care. now you have a friendly system on ennemy space which can be used as quick base.
maybe it could even help making sov space more appealing to small alliance ?
what i'm thinking about this idea is making space not used less easy to own and defend. but as i'm laking real experience my idea may be totally wrong

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:26:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite on 29/03/2011 23:27:57
This is an interesting idea... but the only motive for a pillaging gang to deploy PIDs is to grief carebears that don't want to fight.... Which I don't think is a good thing...

However,

If you perhaps tied this into sov warfare, you have an interesting result: Remove SBU's. Require the sustained deployment of these PID's to increase an incursion "bar"... once the incursion bar reaches x%, various sov structures (TCU, IHUB, Stations) become vulnerable. Now you have a purpose for PID's beyond griefing, and you introduce a mechanic for sustained system activity into Sov Warfare. Granted, it would require a significant amount of tweaking so the "Time to vulnerable" is reasonable.

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.30 00:20:00 - [7]
 

I'm ambivalent on this. I like the idea but I'm not sure I want the extremely limited resources CCP allocates to Internet Spaceships devoted to this. In an ideal world where CCP was serious about fixing bugs, banning botters, and polishing their signature game, I'd support this idea, though I'd like the sov-holding entity to be able to anchor a structure that prevents anchoring this new structure for 16 hours a day (you could concoct some story about 'recharging' to get around the immersion issue) to prevent the time-zone griefing you mentioned. Alternatively, the sov-holding alliance could anchor a structure that prevents anchoring this new structure AT ALL, and the raiding party would have to destroy that structure first.

Shiroi Okami
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2011.03.30 01:10:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Raid'En
Edited by: Raid''En on 29/03/2011 23:14:22
seems like an interesting concept, i like it :)

there's something missing here however ;
what's the interestest of the attacker doing this ? only having opportunity to kill ships ? nothing earned by holding the space for a moment ?




The interest for the attacker is that it puts an end to the current carebear impunity of Doing sanctum -> Red in local -> Dock -> wait for red to leave -> back to sanctum. If they want to keep their good sanctum they actually have to defend it, and it gives small gang roamers more fight opportunities.

That said I'd rather instead of a slow stacking effect, the PID despawns all anomalies in a system until it is destroyed (To actually encourage bears to defend it), and does not have an effect on player ships, because buffing both sides just because seems kind of silly. Also if the PID is in place for a full 24hrs the system loses one system infrastructure anomaly level.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:00:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Agent302
There were a few questions that came to mind:
size, cost, and EHP roughly equal to a large T2 bubble? more or less? what do you think?

I'd say size should be about 50m^3 to 100m^3. You want to be able to carry a couple across your gang without having to bring a transport ship. It should probably be built as a new PI product, so prices would depend on that market, but I'd aim for 25 to 50m Isk. I don't know about the EHP yet. It shouldn't be easily destroyed so you actually have to fight over it, but it shouldn't be silly hard to kill either.
Quote:
the raiding gang would also be subject to whatever de-buffs the PID applied to the system, correct?

And yes, all player ships should experience the same negative effects. The point is to promote a fight, not to give too much advantage to raider or defender.

Originally by: Raid'En
Edited by: Raid''En on 29/03/2011 23:14:22
seems like an interesting concept, i like it :)

there's something missing here however ;
what's the interestest of the attacker doing this ? only having opportunity to kill ships ? nothing earned by holding the space for a moment ?

I think that the initial and biggest reward should be getting a fight, that is what this is designed to do. However when the defender does not respond, it should have a somewhat meaningful strategic reward to the raider. It could be interesting to create a financial reward instead, but I just think the mechanic would then be abused just to make money and not to get fights.

Quote:
also if having the effect staying after they left is defenders didn't done anything is okay, you need to have a max time ; after xx hours / days effect begin to decrease and finnally disapear.

Yes, that is the idea. After the PID is removed, the negative effects either get removed by the defender grinding rats or by letting it passively time out. Either way, unless the raider comes back and re-onlines a PID again, the effect should automatically disappear over time.

Quote:
also i wonder if having an different effect when this happen would be interesting ;
like if you do it, and noone hinder you the negative effect only affect your enemy and not you, meaning for example it could become an advantage on the field, while fighting on a space that have sov but no one really live in
ex ; you go to a quiet system, activate the thing. no one care. now you have a friendly system on ennemy space which can be used as quick base.
maybe it could even help making sov space more appealing to small alliance ?
what i'm thinking about this idea is making space not used less easy to own and defend. but as i'm laking real experience my idea may be totally wrong

There are two sides to 'owning' a system. One is holding sovereignty, which is basically planting your flag. This does mean you have to pay money for it however. The second is actually exploiting it by ratting or mining, which starts making you money.

This mechanic is clearly aimed at the second side to things. It should however have an indirect effect on the first as well, meaning that if you have to pay money for a system you don't defend against raiders, it becomes only a source of costs. This should indirectly incentivise people to not hold sov for more systems they can defend and actually exploit. If the cost of holding a system that you are not actually using isn't high enough, I think that is a flaw in the sovereignty system and shouldn't be fixed through this mechanic.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:22:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Gizznitt Malikite
Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite on 29/03/2011 23:27:57
This is an interesting idea... but the only motive for a pillaging gang to deploy PIDs is to grief carebears that don't want to fight.... Which I don't think is a good thing...

I don't intend this to be a mechanic to grief people. This is why I 'designed' it to give the defenders time to form up (during onlining) and force the raiders to actually defend it (only works when you're on grid within a certain range). Also, the timers should be carefully chosen to make the chance of successful defense reasonable and the effects should be set so that the effect is noticeable but not completely crippling.

However, I believe people in 0.0 shouldn't be carebearing if they are unable or unwilling to defend themselves. High sec allows you to do that. 0.0 should be dangerous and if you aren't able to defend yourself and your space there you have no business being there.

Quote:
If you perhaps tied this into sov warfare, you have an interesting result: Remove SBU's. Require the sustained deployment of these PID's to increase an incursion "bar"... once the incursion bar reaches x%, various sov structures (TCU, IHUB, Stations) become vulnerable. Now you have a purpose for PID's beyond griefing, and you introduce a mechanic for sustained system activity into Sov Warfare. Granted, it would require a significant amount of tweaking so the "Time to vulnerable" is reasonable.

I would like to change aspects of the sov system, but I specifically don't want to mix this mechanic with the sov system for the simple reason that conquering sov shouldn't be easy, nor should this mechanic mean you have to bring the blob. This is supposed to promote small gang warfare, and tying it into sov completely voids that objective, because the stakes in sov warfare will always draw a blob.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:33:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: AkJon Ferguson
I'm ambivalent on this. I like the idea but I'm not sure I want the extremely limited resources CCP allocates to Internet Spaceships devoted to this. In an ideal world where CCP was serious about fixing bugs, banning botters, and polishing their signature game, I'd support this idea,[...]

I think it's good to separate our frustrations with CCP from what are good ideas. Despite the allure of apathy in face of many disappointments, I don't think giving in to that apathy helps. At the same time I realize that the effort put into developing potentially great ideas might be in vain, but so be it.

Quote:
[...] though I'd like the sov-holding entity to be able to anchor a structure that prevents anchoring this new structure for 16 hours a day (you could concoct some story about 'recharging' to get around the immersion issue) to prevent the time-zone griefing you mentioned.

This really shifts the advantage too much to the defender. Cycling a module once or twice a day and being completely safe once that is done means that all valuable systems will never get attacked, meaning you might as well not build this mechanic at all.
Quote:
Alternatively, the sov-holding alliance could anchor a structure that prevents anchoring this new structure AT ALL, and the raiding party would have to destroy that structure first.

This would basically delay the raiding party. The same effect could be achieved by playing with the timers of the PID itself, and I think that would be preferable.

I understand your concern about time zone griefing, but I think that the problem with current 'time zone centric' mechanics is that it actually completely counters small gang warfare. Whenever you can plan the time that something happens and that event is big enough, the blob will come, and it becomes a simple numbers game. Also, it means you can't just do something on the fly, meaning very little incentive for 'ad hoc' gangs to actually do something useful.

What I hate to see however is big pieces of space only used during one time zone. Alliances have much more space then they actually use because their membership is concentrated in one of two time zones while it is completely empty and unused in others. This to me signals imbalance. While I think sov warfare should remain more strategic and the time zone wars there are acceptable, I do think it is absolute nonsense that during entire time zones, space can be left unprotected without any consequence. With the introduction of this mechanic, there is actually more incentive to have space in use across all time zones, and have the ability to defend it across time zones as well. The effects of the mechanic aren't big enough for major shifts, but they do allow minor shifts.

I think the effects could be very positive. Alliances would have a reason to use their space more efficiently, and use less space, leaving room for other alliances to grab space. It would promote small gang warfare, causing more fights, having more activity, causing more destruction (good for economy) etc. The only group it would be overly negative to if for people who refuse to fight and only want to PVE in 0.0, and I think that is exactly a group that doesn't belong in 0.0.

This is not meant to be a griefing tactic. It really should be balanced so that defenders actually have a good chance to defend their system.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:48:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Shiroi Okami
Originally by: Raid'En
Edited by: Raid''En on 29/03/2011 23:14:22
seems like an interesting concept, i like it :)

there's something missing here however ;
what's the interestest of the attacker doing this ? only having opportunity to kill ships ? nothing earned by holding the space for a moment ?




The interest for the attacker is that it puts an end to the current carebear impunity of Doing sanctum -> Red in local -> Dock -> wait for red to leave -> back to sanctum. If they want to keep their good sanctum they actually have to defend it, and it gives small gang roamers more fight opportunities.

Exactly.

Quote:
That said I'd rather instead of a slow stacking effect, the PID despawns all anomalies in a system until it is destroyed (To actually encourage bears to defend it), and does not have an effect on player ships, because buffing both sides just because seems kind of silly. Also if the PID is in place for a full 24hrs the system loses one system infrastructure anomaly level.

I'm not sure how the immediate effect would change things. Your raider gang on its own should be enough to make people want to get out of space in PVE ships, so the anomalies / belt rats still being there shouldn't matter too much.

The effect on ships is designed to deal with things like ratting bots. If you can make player ships weaker, suddenly rats get a lot tougher, meaning that the bot that could perfectly tank those belt rats before suddenly pops now. It means players will actually have to either risk very expensive ships to be able to tank even when weakened or have to work together to kill the rats and get back to normal ship operation.

I designed the mechanic so there would actually be a limited window in which defenders can respond by only requiring the PID to be online for a certain amount of time. One of the most frustrating things as a roamer is waiting for people to form up, and them taking an hour to only bring 4 times the amount of people you have. By limiting their window of opportunity, they have a much stronger incentive for forming up quickly instead of having you wait for a fight forever. At the same amount of time, I actually want the raiders to be somewhat committed to defending the PID as well, because it only 'works' when you are close to it (so you can't online and just move on) and it is something that, after it has reached its effect, can be unanchored and taken along as well, protecting its value. The price should be meaningful enough that you don't want it to stay behind and be destroyed, while not being so prohibitive that only rich people can do this.

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.30 13:59:00 - [13]
 

Sorry Agent, I missed some of your questions:
Quote:
what stops the defenders from using the "MORE" tactic to repel the raiders?


In essence, nothing. However, because the PID only has to be online for a certain amount of time to have effect, they will only have a limited window of opportunity to respond, meaning they will have to form up that blob quickly. Although some alliances might be able to do that and effectively repel raiders by sheer numbers, they will most likely do that at the cost of a lot of blood. And that is perfectly fine with me.

Quote:
would the PID effect jump bridges or the ability to light cynos?

I would be very hesitant about this. This is supposed to be a way to get small scale combat. If you start disrupting large scale tactical abilities, suddenly the stakes go up and chances of unintended griefing go up. So for now, I'd say no.

Quote:
force recons and cov ops frigates would not count toward the ship total, understandably getting rid of the afk cloaky gang, but almost any ship can fit a cloak, would they be disallowed if they have a cloak fitted and ok if not? not sure how that would work out.

The point of this mechanic is to get fights. If you equip your ship with a cloak, you enable it to avoid fights at your choosing, basically giving raiders an unfair advantage. They can anchor the PID, wait for it to achieve effect and cloak up when things happen they don't like. This to me gives the machanic too much potential for griefing.

It doesn't invalidate cloaking ships in raiding gangs, but it just incentivises them to have a majority of ships that actually are set up for confrontation, not avoidance. The bottom line: if raiders don't fully expose their ships to a fight, they shouldn't benefit directly from this mechanic.

Naomi Wildfire
Amarr
Spricer
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.03.30 14:48:00 - [14]
 

Quote:
When a raiding party visits a ratting system


Excuse me, from what game do you come from again?

DaDutchDude
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2011.03.30 15:00:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: DaDutchDude on 30/03/2011 15:03:19
Edited by: DaDutchDude on 30/03/2011 15:02:03
Originally by: Naomi Wildfire
Quote:
When a raiding party visits a ratting system


Excuse me, from what game do you come from again?

From EVE Online, the only MMO I have ever played. Although I know the word raiding is used in other MMO's, it's also a normal word in the English language. Don't know what your point was, but there you have your answer. (Edit: actually, I have played World of Tanks, but I think that's more an 3rd person shooter with tanks then an MMO.)

Maudite 9
Posted - 2011.03.30 17:13:00 - [16]
 

Thumbs up.

I think this is a very good proposal. The soul of EVE is PvP and something like this would enhance it. Wrapping the PID workings into some of the existing mechanics of the Incusions is a smart way to go and helps to make it a more seamless addition to the game.

Well thought out idea and one that addresses an area that needs addressing.


Cheers,
Maudite

Recursa Recursion
Posted - 2011.03.30 20:41:00 - [17]
 

Thumbs up as well. I think it adds a nice touch for small gang warfare.

A few comments / questions:

- What about the drone regions? Does their loot just get reduced by X%?
- The mechanics of the raiding ships (who is in it / present) might be a bit tricky. Is it fleet based relative to the individual who on-lined the PID? Is it standings-based? Corp / alliance-based? My intuition tells me probably fleet-based but that could be problematic if say whomever on-lined it gets D/C'd.
- Is it a limit of one per system? For instance, could effects stack over multiple days or even multiple PIDs at the same time?
- Given that the goal is to increase small gang warfare, should cynos be prohibited on the grid where the PID is when it is on-line? Cynos could still be lit or jumped to (cyno beacon) off the grid with a requirement then to warp to the PID. Otherwise, I think the reaction of the bigger alliances will just be to chuck around moms on any dropped PIDs and cap drops tend to run contra to small roaming gangs. Covert cynos though should be kosher.
- There was a proposal a while back regarding incentivizing harassment techniques. Perhaps the ISK paid out is reduced but whomever anchored the PID (their corp - no NPC corps) would get paid that delta in terms of actual payout versus theoretical payout. Drones would of course be problematic maybe necessitating gathering of the resources at the PID.
- Is PI impacted?
- Could moon goo gathering rate be impacted as well, say reduce the moon goo take by X%?
- Could POS fuel consumption be affected (say reduce sov savings)? Maybe similar for JB operation, increase the LO cost on outbound jumps?
- Could manufacturing / research time be impacted?

The bottom 4 items might be a bit too griefer-rific.

Perhaps the mechanic is some sort of stacking penalty applied that gets the impact closer to 100% (i.e. base Incursion)? The anchor process could be quite quick say on the order of 1 minute, on-line period is also quick, say 1 minute. With appropriate POS rights, the charge cycle is selected that begins a timer (keeping it separate from anchor / on-lining) based on the number of ships decloaked. An alternate would be that anything on the grid is decloaked but that seems a bit excessive. After the charging period (say 10 minutes), the player can engage the PID. It then shifts the "incursion" scale by say 25% of the remaining amount. Thus, your first shift engages a 25% penalty, the second one by an additional 18.75%, etc. That number could be adjusted. Each hour, the incursion impact decreases by say 1% (1% of the current Incursion penalty, i.e. .25%, .2475%, etc.).

The raiders could then assess whether or not to keep engaging in successive larger penalties trading time for staying longer in the system in response to the blob. A 10 minute base timer (12 ships decloaked) on the "charge" would seem pretty reasonable provided that the penalty imposed was large enough. Should that on-line system maybe be tied to similar gang size / goals as with Incursion, i.e. create a gang sweet spot? That could potentially be interesting as warping onto the grid could radically slow down the charging rate, thus encouraging a rapid response or at least an on-grid presence.


Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.03.30 21:18:00 - [18]
 


Its is a good idea Dutch... A couple more thoughts:

1.) Typically the Incursion effects to EHP/DPS only affect Player Ships. I see defending alliances purposely incursioning themselves to make enemy gangs less effective during SOV/POS warfare. Specifically, this would result in much deadlier deathstars, as their DPS/EHP is not currently altered by the incursion effects. A potential abuse might exist here....

2.) Would this effect moongoo/PI/Roids/Drones at all?

3.) Timescale: What timescales do you feel are appropriate for the time-until-system-effect and incursion decay rate?

4.) Ship-types: Do all ship types count equally in regards to ships on grid (assuming they don't have a cloak)?

5.) Cloakers: I totally understand why ships that are cloaked shouldn't alter the time-to-effect, but why should a ship not be counted just because it can cloak? If its uncloaked, it can be scanned and warped to, thereby making them vulnerable to incomers.


Crazy Kalibanov
Gallente
Grey Templars
Posted - 2011.03.30 23:11:00 - [19]
 

This sounds like a great addition to the game.

Roderigo Borgia
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:10:00 - [20]
 

sounds like a good idea to me - not read all the reply but so probably already been said but i would simply have the PID affect the system upgrades - is more believeable that the device is essentially hacking the ihub and reducing its effectiveness (military and industrial sov rating doohickeys - so you would get less of the good anomolies in the system etc

worth coming out to defend but leaves the systems natural rat population availble - so you can work the military rating of the system back up again

diffetn grades of pid can be used - ones that drop the rating all the way down but take longer to online etc etc and ones that are very quick to use can be carried in small ships but only drop the rating one notch ( obviously would need to be a limit on how often the devices could be deployed in a system )

but yeah great idea

Johnny Lou
Posted - 2011.03.31 12:51:00 - [21]
 

Sounds great.

Here's suggestion as well:

Raiding gang comes in, chooses a spot for deployment, anchors the "thing", starts bringing it online (which should create a warpable beacon).

It should take about 10-30 min to bring it online giving the defenders time to put together a team.

Once it is online the effects start to show and, here comes the tricky part: the shield protecting it starts to slowly "recharge". The longer the raiding gang can protect it the stronger the shields get (up to a limit) making it harder for the defenders to destroy it.

you could also be able to choose between small medium and large PID which influences the maximum shield and the time it needs to be brought online and maybe the effects as well.

There could also be a timer that starts counting up and once it's been destroyed the longer it's been online the longer it will take for the effects to subside.

And, if you want to get really mean, a "time bomb" option could be implemented, where you anchor it and schedule a time for it to come online. if no one is there to defend it it will be very easy to destroy which means no effects.Twisted Evil

Anyway, I like the original idea just as much.

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.03.31 20:19:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Roderigo Borgia
sounds like a good idea to me - not read all the reply but so probably already been said but i would simply have the PID affect the system upgrades - is more believeable that the device is essentially hacking the ihub and reducing its effectiveness (military and industrial sov rating doohickeys - so you would get less of the good anomolies in the system etc

worth coming out to defend but leaves the systems natural rat population availble - so you can work the military rating of the system back up again



To my understanding, the belt NPC's would still be available, but the bounties on them would be reduced, and Player ships would do less dps/have lower resists... Hence, you could still work the military rating back up, but the payouts of doing so are reduced. This way PvE'ers have a strong motivation to defend their space.

Roderigo Borgia
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.03.31 22:34:00 - [23]
 

no i dont like the idea of having your ships affected - ok maybe while the device is in operation an in and around it - but long after its gone? whats the rational for that? how can something thats not there suddenly affect your ships stats

i also dont see why they would affect the bounties paid by concord for pirate kills - suddenly because someone placed a device in a system some time ago they dont pay full amount? nah get rid of the system upgrades and thats the financial penalty for the space holder - having to work the level back up with ****ty anomolies is the punishment - no more havens and sanctums for 2 days or so and nothing to stop the raiding party coming back before they even got it back

the rest is unnessesary - i wouldn't even bother with anchoring and onlining - you dump it and it insta onlines and aslong the gang that deployed it is on grid it starts a timer - when system defenders are on grid too it stops - if its destroyed before it completes its timer then nothing happens if it does complete system upgrades offlined - or perhaps destroyed

yeah deploy the device at the ihub its drones burrow in and destroys upgrades - different devices go after different upgrades (non strategic ones) 9 infact maybe strategic ones too - would give small gangs the ability to disrupt large alliances if they dont come out and fight - though i admit for timezone specific alliances would be a nightmare - i think that for a sucessful attack on such upgrades would need to take several hours of uncontested time on grid by more than one person

but yeah strategic upgrade attacks would likely draw out alliances to fights

Firiya Boomsloop
Posted - 2011.04.01 16:57:00 - [24]
 

The intention of the approach though is to draw out a faster response instead of the massive alliance blob. If the gang has to be present for its effects to apply, most folks will either wait until the calvary comes or just safe up until the gang gets bored and leaves. Same crap as always, enter a system, poof, everyone safes up / docks up. No consequences for inaction, no response.

With the ability to deliver a payload that lingers coupled with a limited time to intervene, it necessitates a response to the immediate threat. You can't wait for the alliance-wide fleet to form up lest your ratting / mining / activities be disrupted. It allows a small gang to try to force a fight now that there are longer term economic consequences for not defending your space. Otherwise, the optimal response is always to blue ball the roaming gang which is pretty much the status quo now.

I don't think you can ignore the TZ griefing issues, particularly since this is suited to small gangs. I would set something up where the effects ebb and flow like the tide based on the 24h cycle when the PID was invoked with some lingering effects. For instance, trigger the PID at 2300 EVE time. At 2300 the next day, the impact is maximized and one hour later (from when it was off-lined), it decreases to 1/4 or 1/8 of the maximum strength. Sort of like a cresting wave. Fellow alliance peeps could rat / indy / whatever in the ebb period. The effects are maximized at the time when the small gang came through with the penalties decreasing by say 10% per day from when the PID was placed.

Throw in a dash of large, medium, small that creates the equivalent penalties of 50%, 35%, and 25% (percentage being the equivalence of a fully controlled Incursion system). Anchor / unanchor quickly (1m). On-line relatively quickly as well (5, 10, 15 min) and then have the incursion penalty grow using a ship / fleet size curve similar to Incursion reward payouts. Extremely small growth if you have a puny gang on grid (< 5), sweet spot of growth from 5-20, rapid dropoff if there are more than 20 ships on grid / decloaked. Time from 0% penalty to full penalty with 12-15 ships would be 30 minutes.

Mucking with moon goo, PI, and other stuff is probably too much. Rat strengthening is probably enough. Structures would also be impacted. The ebb / flow concept could be batched on a 15 minute basis.

Recursa Recursion
Posted - 2011.04.01 17:00:00 - [25]
 

Part of the twist too is that it becomes an effective bot squashing mechanism. Rat strengthening / player weakening would neut the viability of many of the bots, be those bots for mining or ratting.

Johnny Lou
Posted - 2011.04.02 12:54:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Recursa Recursion
Part of the twist too is that it becomes an effective bot squashing mechanism. Rat strengthening / player weakening would neut the viability of many of the bots, be those bots for mining or ratting.

nice bonus Smile

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Posted - 2011.04.05 19:35:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Firiya Boomsloop

I don't think you can ignore the TZ griefing issues, particularly since this is suited to small gangs. I would set something up where the effects ebb and flow like the tide based on the 24h cycle when the PID was invoked with some lingering effects. For instance, trigger the PID at 2300 EVE time. At 2300 the next day, the impact is maximized and one hour later (from when it was off-lined), it decreases to 1/4 or 1/8 of the maximum strength. Sort of like a cresting wave. Fellow alliance peeps could rat / indy / whatever in the ebb period. The effects are maximized at the time when the small gang came through with the penalties decreasing by say 10% per day from when the PID was placed.


I really like the ebb/flow addition to this idea!! I'm just debating if people should be offered some system indication of the current strength.... otherwise some uninformed ratter/bot would suddenly find their ship weakly tanked for the PvE they were doing 30 minutes ago just fine!

Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.06 03:43:00 - [28]
 

I like the idea, and small gang PvP does need to have some incentive beyond simply trying to blow stuff up.

What this sparks in my mind is that historically raiders tend to pillage and loot the resources that the locals have built up while leaving them able to continue life to be raided later, sustainable plundering as it were.

What might be cool is a module that you can put up in a system that doesn't put up a system-wide beacon but can easily be scanned down (ship scanners can pick it up, but not get a warp-in) that siphons some small amount of ISK from the locals so long as the fleet that placed it is still in the constellation (not necessarily the system). Call it a Bounty Corruption Unit or something, although it doesn't necessarily have to be tied only to bounties (just putting the idea out there, details can follow).

While that unit is active and sufficient members of the fleet that anchored/onlined it are present in the constellation, those fleet members get a small percentage (say 0.5%) of all bounties paid in the unit's system (which shows up in the ratter's wallet journal).

This would give the locals the choice - put up with the raider's corrupting influence (so the raiders get to make ISK off the locals) or either a) chase the raiders away or b) find and destroy the unit (which would notify the raider fleet that it is under attack). It would also encourage raiding fleets to stay small so as not to disperse their raiding proceeds among too many members.

Perhaps the percentage could vary based on how "engageable" the raiding fleet is to stop them simply bouncing between safes. Being on grid of a gate for example would mean being in closer communication with the unit and therefore get a better corrupting influence (better percentage of bounties). This would be to encourage the "fight the raiders" option, rather than simply drop supercaps on the unit.

It would take a while for the cost of the unit to pay for itself, but it could be unanchored and taken away to another constellation, or if left long enough in an active enough ratting system could net a tidy return, and encourage fighting in the meantime.

Nikki Forte
Posted - 2011.04.18 17:59:00 - [29]
 


This has some potential!!!

WittyName Here
Posted - 2011.05.01 22:29:00 - [30]
 

Bump for a good idea, but requires some expansion and discussion.

I like the idea, but as someone said earlier, there is no point in lowering the tanking resistances of players.

On the other hand, a more instant effect would be better. Instantly decreasing bounty levels would be a good idea, but an even more effective way would be to despawn anomalies, just have rats fly off.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only