These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Anomaly Destabilization Platform

Author
Meytal
Doomheim
#1 - 2013-10-30 18:40:40 UTC
This is an anchorable structure (at a planet) that will immediately prevent new anomalies from spawning in the system, as well as despawn the closest Cosmic Anomaly every 6-12 hours. This includes all Combat and Mining anomalies. It should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler but fragile enough that you don't need a dozen capital ships to destroy it. The non-replaceable, unstable, internal fuel cell should last for a week or so and then explode, meaning it's not going to be a permanent fixture. The harmonics used to destabilize anomalies should prohibit more than one of these being used at a time in a single system (blah blah).

The intended purpose is that you want to prompt a fight from a target entity via income denial. Structure grinding often sends the wrong messages; targets too often think you want to evict them instead of just getting a fight out of them. Also, overwhelming forces are often required to bash a structure that people actually care about, which the target may not be able to match at any given time. The end result is either a half-baked attempt that fails and is a waste of time or crushing the spirits of your targets instead of rousing them to action.

A hostile group would enter a target system and deploy this at a chosen planet. At some point, residents would then, ideally, form up a response fleet and drive off the hostiles, destroying the Anomaly Destabilization Platform in the process. Both sides have an element of surprise: the residents don't know when hostiles might deploy one of these, and hostiles don't know when residents might respond. The long despawn time will allow the residents time to discover the existence of the device without immediately having their system drained of sources of income.

If the residents chose not to react, they would see their anomalies despawned, one by one. For the next week, they would have no spawns in their system until they dealt with the Anomaly Destabilization Platform and its guardians (if they're even still present), or wait until it destroyed itself. Risk PvP to destroy it, or risk financial setbacks for cowering in the POS like scared little girls.

The Anomaly Destabilization Platform idea was originally intended for W-space operations, but it could be applicable in K-space as well, I suppose. Obviously, they couldn't be used in Hisec (to deny ice belt anomalies). In Null, it should even stop upgraded systems from spawning anomalies and begin to despawn existing ones.


The single biggest potential for abuse surrounding this item relates to random anomaly respawn mechanics, particularly in W-space. Supposedly, when an anomaly despawns, another one spawns in a related area of space (region, constellation, whatever). A dedicated group could find these related areas of space, deploy these items, and reap the benefits in their own local area. Groups do this now in W-space, despawning anomalies the normal way; the Anomaly Destabilization Platform would make this much more efficient with a lot less effort.

Thus a secondary and necessary part of this proposal is to significantly increase the time between an anomaly despawning and another one respawning, on the order of days or longer, with no minimum count required to be present at all times. It should be entirely possible for a group of related systems to have no anomalies at all for a week or more under normal circumstances. If approved for Nullsec space, Sov mechanics surrounding anomaly spawns would go back into effect when the Anomaly Destabilization Platform is removed or destroyed.

In W-space, longer respawn times will encourage more nomadic behaviour and will discourage camping the related systems to despawn anomalies in favour of collecting them in preferred systems.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-10-30 19:05:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
If smacking in local or poking station services isn't enough to make people undock/form up and fight you then I doubt that this will do the trick either. They will just wait for you to leave and then blow it up with bombers. If you don't leave then they will clone jump to another system and rat/mine there instead. Maybe W-space would be different but in null this thing wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Angeal MacNova
LankTech
#3 - 2013-10-30 19:06:55 UTC
Well it kinda falls in line with the moon goo stealing coming up. Espionage and all that.

Although it just seems to me that if you get a fleet together to go looking for some fleet on fleet action, it may be more productive to enter an enemy system and run the combat anoms. Rather than denying them income, your taking their potential income. So even if they don't respond in force to try and push you out, you will at least make some isk.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Fuuka Yamagishi
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-10-30 20:35:31 UTC
How about something similar but dealing with wormholes. A wormhole stabilization and/or destabilization structure. Something that a hauler could launch/anchor near a wormhole to either boost/sustain or damage a wormhole's capacity or collapse values/timers.

Maybe you want to keep that high sec wormhole open a little bit longer. Maybe you want to keep a wormhole open a little longer to a neighboring hole that your mining/plexing in. Maybe hostiles keep popping in from next door and you want to close the hole quicker to get rid of them or trap them.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#5 - 2013-10-30 21:02:14 UTC

A corp mate of mine once proposed a very similar device:

Player Created Incursion

The truth is, I like some aspects of your idea... but not others:

From my perspective, I want ship-to-ship conflict, and I don't think your device will do so effectively.
I want small-scale conflict drivers, and I don't think your device does that either.

As such, I'd highly recommend the following changes:

a.) Make it noticeable: Deploying this in space creates a warpable beacon (like a cyno beacon) on the overview so anyone can instantly warp to it. Additionally, have it create a message in local, so even docked mofo's know it is there.

b.) Leave it small scale: It should have a fairly low HP.... say 75k (or less) EHP or less, so a single talos can take it down in a minute. Leave it small, so a cruiser can fit one in its hold.

c.) Make responding to it time sensitive: Anchor it, warnings go out, beacon goes up. At which point you online it. Have it take 15 minutes to online, and if successfully onlined the effects are set in stone and cannot be reversed.

d.) Make effects lasting, but limit its timezone sensitivity: For the next 2 hours no new anom spawns, despawns an anom every hour (3 in total), starting with the "high value" anoms.

e.) Add risk to the "attackers": Perhaps onlining it requires someone to be on grid and decloaked for the online processes.

f.) Watch out for exploits: Onlining a second or third won't do anything if the system is already under effect.

Now if you see one of these "anchor" in your system, you know you have to respond quickly (limits blobbing), or live with the consequences. It is harsh enough to annoy, but not too harsh!
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2013-10-30 21:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
1. Fit cyno.
2. Fit brick tank.
3. Fly to carebear system and deploy structure.
4. Wait for locals to arrive.
5. Light cyno.
6. Collect tears.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-10-31 01:25:36 UTC
The residents won't fight.

They

will

go

somewhere

else.


Why is that hard to understand? You can't force bears to fight, and if they fight then they draw in more and more gangs. They will ignore you, go to another system and continue to not fight.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-10-31 03:38:28 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
The residents won't fight.

They

will

go

somewhere

else.


Why is that hard to understand? You can't force bears to fight, and if they fight then they draw in more and more gangs. They will ignore you, go to another system and continue to not fight.


But if a renter can't rely on their landlord to keep their systems clear of these things, those renters will stop paying rent. Forcing a fight between whoever dropped the platform and the landlord.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2013-10-31 04:20:31 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
The residents won't fight.

They

will

go

somewhere

else.


Why is that hard to understand? You can't force bears to fight, and if they fight then they draw in more and more gangs. They will ignore you, go to another system and continue to not fight.


But if a renter can't rely on their landlord to keep their systems clear of these things, those renters will stop paying rent. Forcing a fight between whoever dropped the platform and the landlord.



Does any rental policy actually include protection from random roaming gangs? I doubt it...
Dr0000 Maulerant
Union Nanide and Tooling
#10 - 2013-10-31 04:34:31 UTC
I often wonder if blueballing is really the issue people make it out to be. There are a number of times I've been scanning w-space and gotten invitations to bring some friends in for combat. Maybe try there, OP.

The whole time I was in tribal band we never blueballed anyone, and I was in a garbage TZ, AND we were a "**** tier" alliance.

Tell me again about how every playstyle you dont engage in "doesn't require any effort" and everyone who does it needs to die in a fire. Be sure to mention about how you tried it once but it was too easy/boring/ethnic-homophobic slur. 

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#11 - 2013-10-31 06:55:27 UTC
If proposed deployable structure denies spawn for signatures - they will have to spawn somewhere else. That means that you could deploy these in every system of constellation but one you live in and force ALL signatures/anomalies spawn in your home system. Effectively that would work even better than iHub upgrades.

Then there is "Unpenetrable Shield and All-piercing Spear" type of logic contradiction: if proposed structure denies spawn but iHub upgrades force them to spawn - which one should prevail and why?

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.

Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-10-31 08:40:00 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Does any rental policy actually include protection from random roaming gangs? I doubt it...


If the roaming gangs can cause enough disruption to a renters activities, then one of two things will happen:
- The renters decide that the system(s) they are renting are not worth the cost of rental and move out.
- The landlords provide protection for the renters in order to keep the rental income.


Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-10-31 10:50:43 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Does any rental policy actually include protection from random roaming gangs? I doubt it...


If the roaming gangs can cause enough disruption to a renters activities, then one of two things will happen:
- The renters decide that the system(s) they are renting are not worth the cost of rental and move out.
- The landlords provide protection for the renters in order to keep the rental income.





If the former happens, more renters get found, or the roamers get bored and wander off.

If the latter happens, five more gangs hear about the good fights they get in region X and promptly show up to draw out the landlords. Every day.

Which do you think is more desirable?

(Also I just checked three separate rental agreements, none say they will defend you from roamers, one explicitly states it's your job to defend yourself.)
Meytal
Doomheim
#14 - 2013-11-01 14:05:19 UTC
As mentioned in the original piece, this started out as a W-space idea that also had potential Nullsec applications. If it is implemented for W-space and not Null, I certainly wouldn't cry, as my personal interests do not lie in Null nor do I anticipate this ever to be the case.

My understanding of Nullsec and Sov mechanics are somewhat limited, but I thought that you had to maintain a certain number of NPCs killed or rocks mined to have an increased rate of the respective anomalies spawning? What happens when you don't meet that magic number, such as when your system was shut down for the last week or two?

Do renters generally have free run of their host's space, or is their activity typically limited to a few systems? If renters are limited as I suspect they are, and you cripple the small number of systems that renters are allowed to use, wouldn't that also make it more difficult to replace the renters due to the lack of increased spawn rates in your valuable systems? When faced with not being able to pay Sov bills because your renters aren't paying rent, would the host alliance bring out the muscle to clear the vermin from their space to attract new renters or would they just give up systems? Okay, that last bit is a little extreme considering how deep Nullsec Alliance pockets likely are, but it's a good illustration.

So far, it has been stated that rental agreements usually leave security for the renters in their own hands. But if word spreads that your space is not safe, or that you can't make money there, wouldn't it be harder to attract new renters?

These are all questions and thoughts that went through my mind when considering the application of this in Null, again based on my limited understanding of Null and Sov mechanics from what I've been able to glean from the web.

Some aspects of this are made significantly less complicated in W-space, where I have more experience, but the idea of "hit them in their wallet" is fairly consistent. I've always felt that if you can't defend your space, you shouldn't be in it, whether you are W-space or Nullsec. That roughly extrapolates to the idea that if you won't fight to protect your space, you shouldn't be in it. This device helps to accomplish that.

The truly risk-averse won't fight, true. In fact, the general feeling among W-space residents is that Nullsec PvE'ers take "risk-averse" to a whole new level. But even if someone leaves the POS shields or undocks in a bomber out of frustration to test the waters by shooting this device, that's a huge first step for them, and could eventually help reform that person into a PvP'er one day.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-11-01 19:19:45 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
If the former happens, more renters get found, or the roamers get bored and wander off.


True. Assuming that there are other renters willing to replace the ones that leave.

Quote:
If the latter happens, five more gangs hear about the good fights they get in region X and promptly show up to draw out the landlords. Every day.


Well, until things escalate when the landlord decide to do something to stop the fights.

Maybe require the person who drops the platform to be a member of a sov holding alliance. That way, if the landlords get angry over the repeated platform drops, they know who they need to retaliate against.

Quote:
Which do you think is more desirable?


The option that is more likely to escalate into a Sov war.

Quote:
(Also I just checked three separate rental agreements, none say they will defend you from roamers, one explicitly states it's your job to defend yourself.)

What about defending from groups trying to take system Sov ?

Ideally this platform would sit somewhere between the two.
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#16 - 2013-11-01 19:28:11 UTC
The options already are:

1. "form of a defense fleet and chase off the intruders."
2. "wait for them to go away."

You're suggestion would change this to:

1. "form up a defense fleet and chase off the intruders. Then shoot a structure."
2. "wait for them to go away. Then shoot a structure."

What part of that sounds appealing to ANYONE ?

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.