These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Ghastly Hotbed Of Spaceship Trauma - Ghost Sites in Rubicon

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#221 - 2013-11-05 17:54:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Cryo Kool
accidently quoted myself trying to edit my previous post.
stoicfaux
#222 - 2013-11-05 17:58:56 UTC
Cryo Kool wrote:

1) Make the site use the salvager module to access the cans, assigning it virus values, like they were used in sites prior to odyssey. This will make it more likely that a player will already have the required mod fitted and would not have to sacrifice tank to do it. This ties in well with the lore fix.

2) Scale the damage. Make the ships signature radius be the deciding factor in how much damage is applied when the site/can explodes. Like missiles, there is an explosion radius and the sig radius of the ship being hit determines if full damage is applied or not. Smaller ships take less damage because the have less surface area exposed to the blast.

3) Lore fix. It can be explained that the site is visible on basic scanner because there was an accident at the site that caused it's cloaking field to go offline. The absence of ships on warp in is because they were destroyed in the accident. The entire site will explode within a set amount of time due to some type of chain reaction taking place that will destroy the entire station. Perfectly fits with having to use a salvager to access the containers. "Ghost site" refers to the fact that everyone manning the place was killed in the initial accident leaving it a ghost town possibly haunted by the ghosts of dead employees. The NPC's who arrive during a failed hack can be explained as a response team attempting to salvage some of the research before it is destroyed.

1) No. That just doesn't work, lore wise, IMO. Unless you're using the salvager to "carefully" rip the ghost tower apart to get at the gooey nugget center, in which case, .... meh, I don't know.

2) Brilliant!

3) A better idea is that ship scanner tech has improved and has obsoleted the "stealth" used by the ghost sites. Once the pirates figure out a way to defeat the current generation of ship scanner, then the next generation of "ghost site" will require Scanner Probes (or Something(tm)) to detect.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Ansylia
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2013-11-05 18:12:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ansylia
CCP Abraxas wrote:
Ansylia wrote:
*jumps around with her hand raised*

I still have one nagging lore-related question. In the Dev blog, it mentioned we have Crews on our ships. Is this actually true? I thought the purpose of Jovian Pod technology was to give us completely automated ships?

Quote from the Dev Blog:
Quote:
Your objective, if you wish to risk life and limb (well ... your crew's lives and limbs)

Ships have crews.

Pod tech helps automate certain systems to the point that capsuleer-flown ships need far smaller crews than their regularly-piloted counterparts. Moreover, it gives the pilot such immense control over the ship's various subsystems that the likelihood of surviving combat is theoretically much higher than that of ships with regular pilots and longer response times. I say "theoretically" because as everyone knows, average crew life expectancy on a capsuleer-flown ship is just a little bit longer than if you'd simply been shot out the airlock once the ship undocked.

(It's really not, though. Most of your crews have escape pods, and survive to fight another day. Your camera drones ignore them, because they have no tactical value and - because everyone knows how capsuleers think - entirely too much amusement value, brief as it is.)

Thanks for the answer, it's been nagging me, and the little bit I read on Capsuleer tech on the wikis didn't really go into too much detail.

And as others have said, I think that crews would be something neat to expand on someday.
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#224 - 2013-11-05 18:14:27 UTC
Chris Wheeler wrote:
CCP Abraxas wrote:
Ansylia wrote:
*jumps around with her hand raised*

I still have one nagging lore-related question. In the Dev blog, it mentioned we have Crews on our ships. Is this actually true? I thought the purpose of Jovian Pod technology was to give us completely automated ships?

Quote from the Dev Blog:
Quote:
Your objective, if you wish to risk life and limb (well ... your crew's lives and limbs)

Ships have crews.

Pod tech helps automate certain systems to the point that capsuleer-flown ships need far smaller crews than their regularly-piloted counterparts. Moreover, it gives the pilot such immense control over the ship's various subsystems that the likelihood of surviving combat is theoretically much higher than that of ships with regular pilots and longer response times. I say "theoretically" because as everyone knows, average crew life expectancy on a capsuleer-flown ship is just a little bit longer than if you'd simply been shot out the airlock once the ship undocked.

(It's really not, though. Most of your crews have escape pods, and survive to fight another day. Your camera drones ignore them, because they have no tactical value and - because everyone knows how capsuleers think - entirely too much amusement value, brief as it is.)


If ships have crews, then we need PI on inhabited planets that train crews, and a fitting slot for them. You can expand on this, like crew experience, performance mods, and module-based crew requirements.

Yes, I know this thread is about ghost sites. I'm told that laziness is a side-effect of hunger.


I've always thought that this is a direction that they could go with a kind of 'settlement' idea. You'd take various planets, mostly temperate and turn them into place where people moved to. There would be a spectrum of people that all lived on the planet and would increase system productivity and attract various NPCs etc. The biggest output though of planetary colonization would be crews. The healthier and more advanced your colonies the more crew you could gain. different race/faction groups would be attracted to different areas of space based on proximity to home world, various amenities, trade supplies provided, etc, all things that would have to be passively/actively maintained, but also be vulnerable as strategic assets. Colonies would be attackable perhaps from Dust and blockadable from Eve. Soverieignty with full benefits in a nullsec system would require at least some benevolent treatment of planetary residents, which subtrefuge from enemies could compromise.
Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#225 - 2013-11-05 18:20:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cryo Kool
stoicfaux wrote:

1) No. That just doesn't work, lore wise, IMO. Unless you're using the salvager to "carefully" rip the ghost tower apart to get at the gooey nugget center, in which case, .... meh, I don't know.

2) Brilliant!

3) A better idea is that ship scanner tech has improved and has obsoleted the "stealth" used by the ghost sites. Once the pirates figure out a way to defeat the current generation of ship scanner, then the next generation of "ghost site" will require Scanner Probes (or Something(tm)) to detect.



1) I was making the assumption that you were attempting access something that was partially destroyed/damaged. Although, a salvager is technically disassembling a destroyed ship that may still have functioning/intact parts/sections (T2 salvage) so I see no reason why it couldn't dismantle a completely intact ship or structure if you could make it hold still long enough.
2) Thanks Big smile
3) In a later post I suggested that another type of site, "black site," use the hacking module because it would be considered intact and that it was either scanned down or given as an escalation from the damaged/destroyed "ghost site." It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine finding some data relating to the location of other sites that were in contact with the the first one. The "ghost" name would mirror the naming of "ghost ship(s)" found in debris fields in eve.

I equate these sites to the cold war arms race between Russia and The United States. The pirate factions mirroring Russia in that they were more willing to compromise safety in an effort to develop experimental technology faster. The nature of the things being researched at these sites means that accidents can happen that would effectively offline or diminish the stealth used (base sized covert-ops cloaking). If their stealth technology was completely defeated by the newest ship scanners than there is no reason that concord couldn't spawn an unlimited number of ships and destroy the bases in highsec.
Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#226 - 2013-11-05 18:29:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Cryo Kool
Did it again. Disregard this post.
Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#227 - 2013-11-05 18:52:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Cryo Kool
I'm just gonna stop trying to edit my posts when I catch spelling mistakes. It eventually ends with the entire post showing up as a quote in a new post.
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#228 - 2013-11-05 19:59:34 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Abraxas wrote:
marly cortez wrote:
More utterly pointless BLING Designed by people paid way to much and with far to little imagination, sorry guys another -10 on the interest factor scale.

I'll cop to the overpaid bit, certainly, but I think this is genuinely the first time in my life anyone has ever accused me of having too little imagination! Have you seen some of the fiction I've written for the game? Big smile


Well, in regards to delivering content to hiseccers, your imagination is crushed under a pile of CCP's usual attitude of "feed them sh*t until they leave". Roll


Lack of imagination along the lines of the 'average EVE player' like stuff.

As quoted if you put a figure on the amount of damage, we will, should we even bother to go looking for these things, doubtful in my mind, players will just tank it out and find there is no challenge in the site other than actually yawning occasionally as they sort through the spoils, realise they have been had and walk away, on the other hand if they get blown up by the traps there going look at it as poor design mechanics walk away and not bother with them again adding it to the whole scanning scandal created over the past iterations.

If you are going to design 'stuff' to include in EVE, I hesitate to call it a game, then look at the metric the EVE player uses to measure Time/Risk/Reward involved in any activity undertaken and not the apparent current CCP idea 'I has crayons, I drew this', method of creative design, resurrecting pac man, making pointless changes and generally griefing the players is not IMO good game design.

This inclusion has no purpose other than to provide implants for players to grief other players, there is no storyline to or from it, no skill involved in undertaking it, you go in you get blown up...you go in you get blown up, you go in you.... and so on until once maybe you might actually manage to grab to loot and move on, been a long, long time since I endured the soul crushing drudgery of a console game, but more and more we find this thinking creeping into EVE eroding the original ethos of this community in favour of some new ideal and in the final reckoning causing players to move out of EVE.

The old 'Be careful what you wish for' applies here, sand has a nasty habit of getting in your eye's.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
Chris Wheeler
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#229 - 2013-11-05 20:21:05 UTC
marly cortez wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
CCP Abraxas wrote:
marly cortez wrote:
More utterly pointless BLING Designed by people paid way to much and with far to little imagination, sorry guys another -10 on the interest factor scale.

I'll cop to the overpaid bit, certainly, but I think this is genuinely the first time in my life anyone has ever accused me of having too little imagination! Have you seen some of the fiction I've written for the game? Big smile


Well, in regards to delivering content to hiseccers, your imagination is crushed under a pile of CCP's usual attitude of "feed them sh*t until they leave". Roll


Lack of imagination along the lines of the 'average EVE player' like stuff.

As quoted if you put a figure on the amount of damage, we will, should we even bother to go looking for these things, doubtful in my mind, players will just tank it out and find there is no challenge in the site other than actually yawning occasionally as they sort through the spoils, realise they have been had and walk away, on the other hand if they get blown up by the traps there going look at it as poor design mechanics walk away and not bother with them again adding it to the whole scanning scandal created over the past iterations.

If you are going to design 'stuff' to include in EVE, I hesitate to call it a game, then look at the metric the EVE player uses to measure Time/Risk/Reward involved in any activity undertaken and not the apparent current CCP idea 'I has crayons, I drew this', method of creative design, resurrecting pac man, making pointless changes and generally griefing the players is not IMO good game design.

This inclusion has no purpose other than to provide implants for players to grief other players, there is no storyline to or from it, no skill involved in undertaking it, you go in you get blown up...you go in you get blown up, you go in you.... and so on until once maybe you might actually manage to grab to loot and move on, been a long, long time since I endured the soul crushing drudgery of a console game, but more and more we find this thinking creeping into EVE eroding the original ethos of this community in favour of some new ideal and in the final reckoning causing players to move out of EVE.

The old 'Be careful what you wish for' applies here, sand has a nasty habit of getting in your eye's.


Hey Abraxas: I like you and I'm looking forward to the new content.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#230 - 2013-11-05 21:27:23 UTC
CCP Abraxas wrote:
Ansylia wrote:
*jumps around with her hand raised*

I still have one nagging lore-related question. In the Dev blog, it mentioned we have Crews on our ships. Is this actually true? I thought the purpose of Jovian Pod technology was to give us completely automated ships?

Quote from the Dev Blog:
Quote:
Your objective, if you wish to risk life and limb (well ... your crew's lives and limbs)

Ships have crews.

Pod tech helps automate certain systems to the point that capsuleer-flown ships need far smaller crews than their regularly-piloted counterparts. Moreover, it gives the pilot such immense control over the ship's various subsystems that the likelihood of surviving combat is theoretically much higher than that of ships with regular pilots and longer response times. I say "theoretically" because as everyone knows, average crew life expectancy on a capsuleer-flown ship is just a little bit longer than if you'd simply been shot out the airlock once the ship undocked.

(It's really not, though. Most of your crews have escape pods, and survive to fight another day. Your camera drones ignore them, because they have no tactical value and - because everyone knows how capsuleers think - entirely too much amusement value, brief as it is.)


My crew would have a tough time trying to find those "escape pods" if weren't for the routine escape exercises which my HR officer undertakes. In my career, I've lost more drones than crewmen, albeit I had to recruit a new crew the day I escaped a encounter with only 36 HP left on my Apocalypse's hull... Bear

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#231 - 2013-11-05 21:32:43 UTC
Just make the explosion insta-kill everything on grid. Acclimate the PvE'ers to ship loss, it'll be good for weeding out the stupid.

And it'll preserve the thrill of danger and sense of excitement for a long time. Maybe even drive up the price of the rewards a little. Exploration should have significant environmental dangers.

Increase the risk, and increase the reward. Cool
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#232 - 2013-11-05 22:00:46 UTC
Affinity, will the class of WH have an impact in the chances being this new content. eg higher chance of Ghost SIte occurrence in a class 5 vs a class 2 for instance?
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2013-11-05 22:31:40 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:

The hammering of fists on the outside of your Pod?


Yes, and depending on the language of your client you here different variations of panic and cussing in your local language.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Methusela Tombstone
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#234 - 2013-11-05 23:26:21 UTC
I like the concept of the Ghost sites. And the lore seems to take the game in an interesting direction (to me, anyways). I'll play it before I complain about any of the mechanics or content. I do have a couple of questions, though.

1.) Why not make the damage type/amount random? Wouldn't be hard to do, but it would be difficult to tank. It would allow the possibility of a low skill T1 frigate getting away with some pretty sweet loot, or a battleship being battered to scrap. If you don't know, then what..?

2.) I get the sense that this is the beginning of a new aspect of exploration. Is it possible that you will be adding depth/features to the Ghost sites in future updates? It seems like there is a lot of good ideas worth exploring - even on this thread.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#235 - 2013-11-05 23:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
CCP Affinity wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
My thoughts. From the perspective of a highsec pirate (AWOXer, merc, ganker) that does visit other types of space.

1) Requiring a hacking module will be a bit weird on non-exploration fits. As the first person into the site has a time advantage, it will be a huge disadvantage to have to refit a hacker (either in station or via one of the new depots) so most of these sites will be 'won' by the first person in.

2) The NPCs have had time to refit by the time they appear, so they should be fitted sensibly for fighting against capsuleers. That means warp scramblers (not disruptors), webs, (maybe) smartbombs to deal with drones, and racial ewar and/or logistics.

3) These have real potential to drive player versus player conflict, with players racing to the site then fighting over them. To facilitate this in highsec, I strongly think you should make looting these sites a Crimewatch yellow card offence. This will really drive conflict, and does not break immersion (you stole evidence of secret pirate experiments, so you are interfering with a crime scene). This will help those newer players that want to experience PVP but are afraid of high-low gates to get their feet wet, and add tension - do I prealign and loot one can, or do I stay and fight for the other three?

4) 5000 explosive damage is basically saying 'bring a HAC or larger'. Is that your intention?

5) I would like to see these be active in approximately 5% of systems at any given time. Is that your goal, or do you have a different goal?


1. Being able to hack a tower without some kind of hacking module just makes no sense :) Unfortunately, people will just have to bring one
2. The NPCs will scramble (even in hi sec) and are pretty tough
3. I will consider this - but it may end up in a point release if it comes in at all :) I will weigh out the pros and cons but definitely something to consider
4. The damage number is not set in stone yet, we will see how it feels :)
5. We are still balancing the distribution, I don't think having a set number or percentage is going to be very helpful, we should just keep an eye on them both pre and post release and adjust as necessary



On 2, are you are saying they will use warp scramblers, not just long points? Given that a microjumpdrive makes you basically invincible in PVE at the moment (unless another player intervenes), some counter to this would make a lot of sense.

Also I just want to see rats smartbomb while CONCORD watch and take no action because they aren't capsuleer criminals.

One new question. 6) Will there be a difference between sovereign nullsec sites and non-sov nullsec sites, or will the nullsec sites only really vary with system truesec?


7) Finally as a side note, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3074245 was an idea I posted that has a bit in common with the Ghost Site concept (rare anomolies) but builds on it in a different way. Might be worth a look. It's focused on an unpredictable PVE event driving PVP conflict, which could happen in all sorts of space except wormholes.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
boernl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2013-11-06 00:53:34 UTC
and once again they implant a new feature in the game while the long lasting anooying bugs are still active .........
CCP Abraxas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#237 - 2013-11-06 09:13:50 UTC
Orakkus wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

The hammering of fists on the outside of your Pod?


Yes, and depending on the language of your client you here different variations of panic and cussing in your local language.

This is why we can't have nice things, guys!
boernl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#238 - 2013-11-06 09:16:07 UTC
CCP Abraxas wrote:
Orakkus wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

The hammering of fists on the outside of your Pod?


Yes, and depending on the language of your client you here different variations of panic and cussing in your local language.

This is why we can't have nice things, guys!


bullshit
if the translations are descent thats not a issue
Khorrdum
The Bairshir Conglomerate
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#239 - 2013-11-06 09:33:18 UTC
Cryo Kool wrote:

2) Scale the damage. Make the ships signature radius be the deciding factor in how much damage is applied when the site/can explodes. Like missiles, there is an explosion radius and the sig radius of the ship being hit determines if full damage is applied or not. Smaller ships take less damage because the have less surface area exposed to the blast.


I think the same. It shoud be a risk for all sizes of ships, espescially if they are untanked.
Also i woud suggest to take the ship-velocity as a factor too. Makes it does matter how i'm piloting my ship.
That means, on the mechanic side, the explosions woud work like missile-damage, but within a radius like smartbombs.
If you do so, please be carefull and don't place too much rats with TP's.

Further i woud suggest to make the damage-type random or at least mixed. If it's a single known type of damge, it's too predictable.
Tul Breetai
Impromptu Asset Requisition
#240 - 2013-11-06 11:34:10 UTC
CCP Abraxas wrote:
That's a perfect description for the first site of the first pirate faction that'd start these experiments. It might work for a few more sites, while everyone is in such a mad arms race they haven't yet gotten their security protocols under control. After that, though, having to put out fires on countless sites all over the cluster would start making the brass in each pirate faction doubt whether these things were even worth the effort in the first place Smile

You'll come up with lore reasons not to employ some random idea you were already not employing but you can't answer the question as to why there are pirates in w-space?

There's nothing worse than an EVE player, generally considered to be top of the food chain in the MMO world, that cannot smacktalk with wit and coherency.