open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Simple and balanced mechanics for 0.0 alliance space security.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.17 07:57:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 17/09/2006 07:59:14
This simple thingy wuld allow making soverign space almost as safe as high sec empire, but for balanced cost and balanced risk of losses.

Independent ship AI.

This item wuld be:
-mid slot module
-use rather much CPU
-burn heavy water as fuel (5 frig size, 10 cruiser size, 25 BS size per hour).

Before using, You'd need to load all skills it needs (they become permenent part of AI unless You repackage it, then they are lost). So, if You want an AI controlled BS with large guns and tracking enchancers, You need (race) BS skill, skills for guns and skills for trackind enchancers, and all prequisite skills too. (that a very large isk sink).

Then, You set it up;
-attack war targets only / everyone below -5/0/5 / do not engage
-approach enemy at (X) meters (range).
-follow for (X) meters (if 0 - ship does not move)
-activate ofensive modules in optimal/maximal/(X) meter range.
Also, You online all modules You'd like to have constantly onlined (sensor boosters, active tank etc, You probably need smaller reppers to keep up with cap forver).

Then, You online AI.

Then You eject in pod in place You want Your sentry ship to work.
It simply attacks as its set and activates all ofensive modules in their optimal ranges.

Ship with online AI can be boarded by everyone its not configured to attack.
It can be also boarded by enemy with use of hacking skills and equipment - but it takes a rather long time.

-------

Effect;
As defender, You can choose to risk Your money rather then spend ages in gatecamps.
You can protect Your important systems, stations and stuff against small random attacks for the price of risking big looses to larger invasion.
As offender, You can perform "PvE" combat against concioslu planned defenses rather then stupid rats and with a bit of tactics, cause big looses to Your enemy.

Its also a perfect counter to logoff traps.

tookar
Amarr
THORN Syndicate
THORN Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.17 08:13:00 - [2]
 

Very nice idea Very Happy
A good counter to login traps and something fun for a change .

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.17 13:57:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Evelgrivion on 17/09/2006 14:09:57
Couple of questions:
1. Why heavy water? This is an AI, not a nuclear reactor Confused
2. How would this not favor the wealthy alliances significantly more than the others?

Addendum: The operating costs are paltry compared to the gains using heavy water too - in Oursulaert you can buy heavy water for 47 ISK a piece; thats only about 26000 ISK a day for an independant battleship, and something essentially anyone can field without issue.

Awox
Minmatar
North Eastern Swat
Posted - 2006.09.17 16:30:00 - [4]
 

Or how about you guys learn to PvP in organised gangs and defend your space that way? If you have timezone problems, recruit people from other timezones!

Really, another alliance goon wanting a no-brainer way to defend 0.0 space? Can't have everything for nothing, mate. If you don't want people to NPC in "your" space, go out and kill them. Wink

Oh, and it might be the solution to your logoff trap problems, but not everyone lives in 0.0.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.17 19:25:00 - [5]
 

@Awox
I'm rather new in KOS and this topic has no relation to current or general situation of my alliance, its hypothetic timezone problems or wars.
It's a proposal refering to all ideas of making pseudo-empire in 0.0. This serves basically this function - creating a safe(r) space for a price.

Its not no-brainer solution to have pvp done by automaton and spend all time on mining or whatever.
Its a replacement of most hopelesly boring type of pvp - gate camps with no expected serious attack. Sitting 8 hours on gate for the joy of 2 seconds poping a random hauler is not the most exciting part of the game. Waiting 8 days in logoff spot in hope of getting a logged gang is not very exciting too.

In this time, pvpers culd engage more intresting activities - like patrols, atacking enemy, cunningly popping enemy AI camps and hunting guys who cunningly pop Your AI camps.
AI camps wuld be something like fighting NPCs on missions, with some important difrences;
-You fight real people who set up traps, not mission designers. Mission designers build missions to be doable and fun. Enemies build camps to kill You. You have to out-wit real people, who not only set up AIs to be as deadly as possible, but most likely fly somewhere around and will move/asemble a gang in next few minutes.
-rather then getting small ISK rewards, You get joy of causing big looses to enemy.

Loosing such camp is a big bash in wallet (You basically loose ships and fittings plus AIs with skills in them), so seting it up wuld require rather good planning and strategy to risk minimal money and have maimum efficiency.

So, this replaces a boring grind with intresting strategic planing.

@Evelgrivion

1.Heavy water is afair CPU fuel in POSes.
Yes, it is cheap. Its not an isk sink. Actual cost is the risk of loosing camped ships. Fuel is there for disabling posibility to put thousands of ships to camp forever. Refueling each ship requires boarding it, aproaching some can with fuel, loading, returning to right tactical position, unboarding. Need to this once in few days will easily prevent "clever" atempts to pu 7000 AI frigates in every system.

2.Wealthy alliances with bad organisation, planning, weak pvp fleet and slow reactions, will have a good way to loose their wealth to more active and efficient but smaller ones in this mechanics.
Wealthy, well organised, fast reacting alliances with good planists and strong pvp fleet, will benefit from this, as from any other thing that culd ever show up in game.
This wont however make them involnerable.

This wuld however make wars more static, with figting for every gate and every system, rather then fleets rolling over enemy territory one day (and doing rather small damage) and going somwhere else tommorow.

I thing that conquering a system, holding it for a few days, then conquering next one or two jumps and so on, untill after month You get into enemy capital systems is much more fun then current POS-wars.

Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2006.09.17 20:08:00 - [6]
 

As noble as an attempt it may be to make things interesting, its still going to be abused. Its what people do - and its way too easy to do it. People are going to be willing to pop in and do it because it will accomplish three things:

1: Make 0.0 INACCESSABLE to anyone NOT in a blob
2: Lead to spamming during times of war
3: Create lag from blobbing/spamming

I know youre trying to conceive a solution, but this can of worms would create more problems than it would solve.

high star
EARLS OF MAELSTROM
Posted - 2006.09.18 12:17:00 - [7]
 

There is an easier way to do this, simply setup 'Concord For Hire '. For certain amount of isk per month your alliance could hire a small concord type fleet to gaurd your gates and/or stations ( inc POS ).

These ship would be destructable and may be possible to make them retreat if losses high enough.

There could also be the possiblity of bribing them to leave without a fight.

Terazuk
Amarr
Servants of Drawnon
Posted - 2006.09.18 12:49:00 - [8]
 

I think it's a great idea and I don't agree it would make 0.0 inaccessible. If it was done right with some adjustments I think it could work!

Instead of fitting ships with an AI have it as a remote piloting device linked to a drone control node that needs to be anchored in a POS. And perhaps have it so that only one could be active in a sytem at a time and installing others could cause 'drones' to behave erratically.. ie shooting each other.. anything that comes thru the gate, warping off to random locations, hehehe!

By the very nature of having a Master AI it will limit the number of defenders you can assign to gates, stations.. etc.

And of course the AI could be quite fallible being that there would be a bit of a delay between ships uncloaking at a gate and the 'drones' moving to intercept! Perhaps these drones could also report giving ship types, last known heading and numbers etc, in a channel set up for it!

All in all I love the idea!


Thelmarr
Posted - 2006.09.18 12:51:00 - [9]
 

Ummmm..... How about... No.

Alliances should not be able to outsource their defence to ANY NPC solutions.

You wanted to claim it, now GUARD IT. If you don't feel like personally guarding it, don't try to claim it.

Besides which, this would just, as mentioned earlier, help mega-alliances build foolproof defences against any attempts to slip into their territories without a blob.

Problem of refueling 30 T2 BS on sniper position would be pittance for them. One guy to board boats and another in hauler filled with fuel will do it easily.


Defending territory should be made MORE difficult, not easier (with aim of forcing alliances to concentrate and thus free up their space for others to claim)

Carmizan
DOCS RUFF RIDERS
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2006.09.18 13:47:00 - [10]
 

Why ship?

Why not have speacial sentry guns that the alliance can build, but can only install 1 at each gate/ station at a time (for example 1/month)to a maxium of say eight ( or what every is the maxium in 0.8 space).

They can be based on the large senry guns used in POS's except they would have shields and armour. They would need to be loaded with ammo. This would include Amarr guns as these guns would damage the crystals as in T2.

This solve the problem of making the area inaccessible and only protects the gates and any outpost/ station that maybe in the system and with the restriction on numbers the defening alliance can not cause lagg by placing hundreds of sentry guns at a gate.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.18 13:52:00 - [11]
 

Ship because ships in eve are the most elastic, configurable element ever. You can make wonders with fittings only, You have houndreds of ship types available. This allows houndreds and houndreds of new tactics and counters, while turrets are overpowered or underpowered and pretty predictable.

I'll make some cost calculations and tactical examples to show how setting up 30 sniper BSes is not overpowered.

Lala Ru
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.18 14:28:00 - [12]
 

They won't replace gatecamps. Gatecamps will simply take place, only with a half dozen AI sniping battleships providing support.

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.18 14:33:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 18/09/2006 14:34:59
Those however, will be gatecamps of people who like to sit in gatecamp and expect guests and kills soon, not gatecamps that are obligatory long hours of boredom with 2 kills per day.

They will surely replace gatecamps around logon traps, with weeks of waiting in hope of enemy logging back in the middle of Yor teritory.

vinnymcg
Glukkons
Posted - 2006.09.18 14:55:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: vinnymcg on 18/09/2006 14:55:52
I would love if this could be brought into the game BUT (very big but) It would not work.

Does anybody remember mines! They could be anchored around a gate a blow up incoming people. This is kind of the same idea

Although this idea has merit it would be absued to much im in ASCN and i think if this were to come out they would get almost every person to make just one of these BS Drones. That means there would probably be 2000 BS class drones guarding the entrances to ASCN space. It seems a bit over powered

Ellaine TashMurkon
CBC Interstellar
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2006.09.18 15:53:00 - [15]
 

It does not matter much how many BSes You have on gates if You do not have pvping patrols to help them, enemy can always outmaneuver the camp.

200 BS camps will enforce more finesy in attacks and use of carriers to what they were thought for - carrying ships into battle in built in hangar. You can jump afair about 20 ceptors in a single carrier and they can do real mess, as well as they can spoil a lot of camping sniper BS. AI sniping BS wont relocate every minute, wont call primary, wont warp off when damaged, wont use more serious tank (they will use only as much repair as can be sustained indefiantely). They wont also get skill bonuses to anything, and thats a lot.

But ok, lets consider situation, when whole ASCN space is blocked with tons of AI ships, unpassable without a big blob.

The other side of equation, are other alliances knowing, that they can get a big blob and cause 3 billion damage to ASCN within 20 minutes and with much smaller looses.

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2006.09.18 16:53:00 - [16]
 

It's one of the better thought-out ideas I have seen so far :)

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2006.09.18 16:58:00 - [17]
 

Defend your Alliances systems while AFK! Or go ratting! What an absolutely brilliantly balanced idea! In fact why stop there? Why not just dismantle gate access for anyone not in your alliance - permanent risk free mining and ratting in 0.0!!! Genius!

C.

Thelmarr
Posted - 2006.09.18 19:52:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
It does not matter much how many BSes You have on gates if You do not have pvping patrols to help them, enemy can always outmaneuver the camp.

200 BS camps will enforce more finesy in attacks and use of carriers to what they were thought for - carrying ships into battle in built in hangar. You can jump afair about 20 ceptors in a single carrier and they can do real mess, as well as they can spoil a lot of camping sniper BS. AI sniping BS wont relocate every minute, wont call primary, wont warp off when damaged, wont use more serious tank (they will use only as much repair as can be sustained indefiantely). They wont also get skill bonuses to anything, and thats a lot.

But ok, lets consider situation, when whole ASCN space is blocked with tons of AI ships, unpassable without a big blob.

The other side of equation, are other alliances knowing, that they can get a big blob and cause 3 billion damage to ASCN within 20 minutes and with much smaller looses.


Let me see... This is mega-alliance we are talking about. 3 billion lost? Who cares! They are able to stop privateers, miners and ratters from getting to their territory. And that blob of yours will lose some ships as well. T2 geared instalocking AI ships are not perhaps as efficient as player used but they would have huge numbers to back them up. Not to mention the infamous LagFactor which, since they are run by server, gunbots would not suffer from.


00 defence should be made such that mega-alliances would no longer be as desirable or effective as they are. NOT give them AI bordercontrol.


 

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