These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Deployable Barricades

Author
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#1 - 2011-11-22 21:02:51 UTC
Basics: It’s cover.
The idea is that the deployable structure has a shield, like a POS, that player ships can hide behind. There is a limited range that changes with the size of the barricade (S, M, L, XL). The barricade then takes the damage for the ships within it until its shield HP runs out.

Reasoning
Modern warfare in Eve reminds me of a line-up-and-die style of tactics from Napoleonic wars. Not that I don’t love scorched-earth methods, but those are not the advanced tactics I would expect from Eve. Honestly, I would like to see additions that added to variety of game play.

Uses
This would affect fleet battles the most, if you can get them running. It also would affect POS attacks. Small gangs could make defendable safe spots. Gate campers might have a little too much fun with this one if the cost is too low. Miners could protect themselves better in lowsec (not sure about allowing these in highsec) making it more viable to work there.

Anchoring
Deploying the structure takes time to anchor, just like any other structure. Before that, it is vulnerable to attack on its armor. Smaller units take less time; large units take longer to deploy. You cannot double anchor or anchor within range of another unit.

Races
Since armor plays into tactics, this gives an advantage to non-shield races. Invading force may go with Gallente or Amarr, which has a better chance of deploying. Defending forces may go with Caldari or Minmatar since it has more shields. Anchoring times could vary by race (e.g. Minmatar with low EHP, fastest deploy).

Fuel
It should take fuel to add limits/balance, but there is no Reinforce Mode. This adds to costs too, making prolonged engagements to the benefit of the defending forces. The cost of running one-per-ship would be considerable. Restarting a down barricade should have to be redeployed, or have a time penalty (you shouldn’t be able to just leave them out).

Metrics
I have no idea what the volume, mass, or range of the shields should be. Nor do I have any suggestions on anchoring time. I do think that the protective area should only be able to fit three ships of the according class (4 if you have College Phone Booth Cramming to V).


Anyway, that’s the idea. I doubt that I’m the first to come up with something along these lines. I have at least seen a ship version of the idea. I’m not even sure I’m in favor of it. I know I don’t have a full balance/impact understanding. I do think it is an idea worthy of throwing out there.

Note: This actually isn’t anything really new. There was a (L2 drone?) mission that had one of these at one point.
Aesiron
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-11-22 21:21:27 UTC
Bullets and lasers already go through objects unaffected. So why would a barricade be any different?

I think it would be too practical and would just be a silly waste of time hiding behind barriers.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#3 - 2011-11-22 21:40:44 UTC
Aesiron wrote:
Bullets and lasers already go through objects unaffected. So why would a barricade be any different?

They don't go through POS shields or a mission shield object. You can’t hit an object within them. It's an existing game mechanic.

Aesiron wrote:
I think it would be too practical and would just be a silly waste of time hiding behind barriers.

Sometimes it would be. That said, creating deployable, defendable positions is a valid military tactic.
Ford Ix Prefect
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2011-11-22 23:41:40 UTC
So you want invulnerable miners? mission carriers? able to warp off when they see a hostile?
Goodgodyourface
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-11-23 01:56:54 UTC
ITT: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Two-DSpace

"Barricades deployed, FC, we're good"
"All right, everyone get to work."
"Wait... FC, the enemy is starting to go around the barricades!"
"They're what?"
"They're going above and below the barricades!"
"My god, how did they figure out how to do something that crazy?!?!"
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#6 - 2011-11-23 04:57:32 UTC
Ford Ix Prefect wrote:
So you want invulnerable miners? mission carriers? able to warp off when they see a hostile?
I would like to see more people in lowsec. More full mining ops would make for nicer targets, but you will need organized strategy to get to them. For nullsec, just drop a bubble. As for carries, they can already do that with a POS in the area. Mission runners might be more apt to venture out to all those lowsec missions they have been skipping. More targets is a good thing. The expense of using the unit has to be justified, though. Also, how much HP the unit has is a tough balance: too few and it does nothing, too much and it becomes mandatory/OP.

Goodgodyourface wrote:
"Wait... FC, the enemy is starting to go around the barricades!"
Heh, no, not those barricades, these barricades. Think of Force Field Arrays or Shield Generators. 8)


Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#7 - 2011-11-23 07:15:56 UTC
I cannot fathom the reasoning why the possibility of deployable barriers would entice more people to travel into lowsec. The opposite may be true, just because gatecamps may even be fortified, then. The result? Even less risk for the gatecampers in the rare case someone dares to retaliate.

Stack it up to the reasons to avoid lowsec at all costs.

Aesiron
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2011-11-23 07:19:17 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Aesiron wrote:
Bullets and lasers already go through objects unaffected. So why would a barricade be any different?

They don't go through POS shields or a mission shield object. You can’t hit an object within them. It's an existing game mechanic.

Aesiron wrote:
I think it would be too practical and would just be a silly waste of time hiding behind barriers.

Sometimes it would be. That said, creating deployable, defendable positions is a valid military tactic.


I don't see how deploying barriers is tactical in EVE. Most ships have very bad inertia and for someone to stop right behind a barrier would be hard, and also it simply slows down the inevitable of the other ship slowly coming to kill you.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#9 - 2011-11-23 08:13:42 UTC
Rina Asanari wrote:
I cannot fathom the reasoning why the possibility of deployable barriers would entice more people to travel into lowsec. The opposite may be true, just because gatecamps may even be fortified, then. The result? Even less risk for the gatecampers in the rare case someone dares to retaliate.
Send a scout. Heck, use an alt and have them set up the spot for you. If you see a camper, warn everyone else with a message or a can and now you are PvPing: you are hitting them in their wallet.

Aesiron wrote:
I don't see how deploying barriers is tactical in EVE. Most ships have very bad inertia and for someone to stop right behind a barrier would be hard, and also it simply slows down the inevitable of the other ship slowly coming to kill you.
It's a sphere. Go toward the unit in the center. Hit "Keep at Distance" to stay there. If you think you can't fend off the attacking force, flee. If they try to set up barricade, try and shoot it before they kill you. If they out range you, run. To catch them if they run have ships on the other side of the gate, interceptors pursue, or a set up a bubble. You can use an all BS quad to kill the shield faster than they can react or have one BS scare them into running into a trap. Tactics and more people to practice them on.

Don't forget to steal an abandoned unit when it runs out of power.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-11-23 09:01:36 UTC
Why is it I tend to find favor in topics that receive lots of negative attention.

It's a good idea, imo. And they should be linkable. Matter of fact, why aren't there linkable sovereign structures? That could allow players to build dockable and moderately functioning/purpose-oriented stations/starbases. With shields.

And, lets say to balance that, you allow players to set them up near starbases which would allow them to function longer once connected to a control tower - or face a penalty when set up and running on its own power supply.

I don't know. I like to think.