These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

balanced Dust 514 boarding parties

Author
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#61 - 2013-04-05 15:39:37 UTC
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
The only way I can see the whole "Boarding" thing working is not with ships but with structures

whats the problem with ships?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#62 - 2013-04-05 15:59:18 UTC
I hate the idea personally, not entirely sure why, just do,
a few balance points:
offenders get a tactical advantage against the smaller ships, and a tactical disadvantage against the bigger ships.....
so for a frigate, 16 attackers vs 4 defenders, but since there are so few corridors in a frig, they might stand a chance.....
for a titan - 32 attackers vs 128 or maybe even 256 defenders, since they've got to defend miles of INTERLINKING corridors, and if they don't interlink - what's the realism?

I'd much rather see this for customs offices, outposts, etc...since they're taken anyway, maybe for POS's too?
basically stuff that you grind rather than overheat and kill...

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Stegas Tyrano
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2013-04-05 17:04:08 UTC
I can see this working for POS, Outposts and maybe even customs offices but not ships. If anything it could be a WiS feature for EVE pilots to board, hack and steal ships where the pilot has logged off, ejected or activated self destruct.

Herping your derp since 19Potato - [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2403364][Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts[/url]

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#64 - 2013-04-05 17:39:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
I hate the idea personally, not entirely sure why, just do,
a few balance points:
offenders get a tactical advantage against the smaller ships, and a tactical disadvantage against the bigger ships.....
so for a frigate, 16 attackers vs 4 defenders.....

it isn't the crew what is defending your ship. You have merc clones in the refrigerator for situations where you need them. All the RP aspects can be easily extended for the sake of balance - remember merc clones are a new thing to the eve universe anyway. And i don't want to talk about capitals, since every dead capital is a good capital, thats why there should be additional effort and risk involved to board a capital.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#65 - 2013-04-05 17:40:31 UTC
Stegas Tyrano wrote:
I can see this working for POS, Outposts and maybe even customs offices but not ships.

what would not work with ships?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Jason Itiner
Harmless People
#66 - 2013-04-05 19:16:49 UTC
Just a question: would the boarders have any reasonable chance of reaching and disabling the ship's self-destruct mechanism inside of 120 seconds?

Even just taking a smaller ship, like a Drake: it has a 513 meter keel, and I imagine the computing core isn't right next to the skin of the ship. So the mercs would have to move at least, let's say 250 meters, through sealed bulkheads, disabled elevators, enemy resistance or static defenses, breach the core, find the self-destruct terminal, bypass any software defenses in place, and issue the shutdown command, all in the space of 120 seconds.
The Megathron: 1006 meters on the keel, so let's say 500 meters to the core, but still through sealed bulkheads, no elevators, heavy resistance and static defenses, and since it's a bigger ship, it may possibly have multiple computing cores that need to be disabled.
The Moros: 3207 meters long, so it's now, say, 1500 meters to the core, with the same obstacles.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#67 - 2013-04-05 19:22:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Jason Itiner wrote:
Just a question: would the boarders have any reasonable chance of reaching and disabling the ship's self-destruct mechanism inside of 120 seconds?

maybe you can hack it from the next best terminal to slow it down temporarily till you reach the real ship computer core thingy. Or CCP could just increase self destruct time for ships to 5mins and reduce it for pods to 30s...

edit: or you may be so confident in your defenders that you do not even consider to enable the self destruct

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Plyn
Uncharted.
#68 - 2013-04-05 20:54:51 UTC
Neat in theory, too impractical and difficult to implement for actual, balanced gameplay.

Best hope for this would be GM controlled dynamic events, but there would have to be a ton of scripting to ensure that the dust players were the clutch instead of the controlled ships just popping. At that point what's the draw for us in our ships? Might as well just make ship to ship fighting a thing for random matchmaking in dust and assumed to take place on non-capsuleer controlled ships even though we space-monkies never see it actually happen.
Hazel Starr
Krypteia Brotherhood
#69 - 2013-04-17 02:11:12 UTC
We made a good living capturing ships attempting to do missions in contested low-sec.

The circumstances we set up involved very boosted long points followed by overwhelming
force including disco-ships to remove the thought that anyone caught was going to get
their pod away
unscathed.

Simple persuasion and not pod-killing the cooperative ensured a regular supply of
the optimistic.



Ransoming a complete hull with modules is far more cost effective than blowing hulls
away and hoping
for luck on the drop.

I rather like the idea of ship assaults - it really fits the genre.

However 3 minutes is about as long as a game could last.

-- Haze
The Aliax
Triton Dynamics LLC
#70 - 2013-07-09 21:23:23 UTC
This makes me think of playing football and running for to goal line, then stopping at the one yard line and playing a game of chess to see if im gonna score.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#71 - 2013-07-09 21:48:18 UTC
The Aliax wrote:
This makes me think of playing football and running for to goal line, then stopping at the one yard line and playing a game of chess to see if im gonna score.



yeah. but everybody can kill you while you play chess and winning the chess game gives more points as running over the line. Comparisons like that don't work very well.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#72 - 2013-07-10 02:09:24 UTC
I only support this idea as long as dustbunnies don't hold hand over what we can and can not do.

Unless ofc dust comes over to PC.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#73 - 2013-07-10 05:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
I like the SUBSTANCE of this idea, but for it to work you'd have to literally add a new "disabled" state to basically willfully prevent a ship that reaches zero hull or self destruct from actually exploding. Using a percentage of hull nerfs hull and completely kills any ability to escape with low hull.

If we introduced, as an effect of the boarding module, an ability to arrest a structural breach that causes an explosion then it would be pretty balanced.

Now:

0 hull, your boat explodes.

Boarding:

0 hull, your ship still explodes, unless someone makes an effort to stop it from exploding.

The boarding ship has you locked and you are being affected by the "Emergancy integrity array", you reach 0 hull. You (the pod) are ejected from the ship (which is functionally dead anyway) and that hulk becomes the match. This is in effect if you've self destructed as well. Your ship is essentially a wreck with all the stuff still on it, being held together by the agressor's module.

Defenders - You could use boarding defense contracts like insurance, mercs based on leaderboard metrics. Dudes higher on the board respond to higher grade contracts. You could also use members of your own corp. Mercs stationed at a nearby planet, pos, carrier, or other vessel. You opt in to this system only if you see value in it. If you're a player that doesn't see himself in a position to actually regain a ship by defending against boarding (solo pilots for instance) this isn't a system you'll want to opt in to. IF defenders spawn, that action turns on a similar structural module. This prevents the agressor from simply turning off the boarding mod to hose the defense.

Objectives:
Stabalize the hulk by welding, repairing, hacking, etc. in order to return it to functioning status, then holding those systems whilst depleting enemy merc clone reserves.

The winning team gains control of the ship for whomever summoned it. That player has the option to jet all cargo and nuke it, restore it to 1% hull so a pod can hop in, or just nuke it. The mercs are paid either automatically (in the case of random roll contracts) or by player created specific contracts with corps/individials mercs.

Gang Interference

You can still target and shoot at it while the match is in progress like any other wreck. This actually sets back any repair progress inside. This means you can dierctly screw over the primary objective of both teams from the outside, but this action is counter to any valuable boarding or counter-boarding plans you may have had. If you know you're going to lose it and don't want the other guy to have it, go ahead if you don't have anything better to shoot at. mercs are already getting SP and isk for participating. This means that in large fleet battles you can essentially "fire and forget" boarding parties and move on, possibly allowing your guys in pods to get a new lease on life. It also means you can counterplay that strategy if you're actually winning the fleet fight. In short, interfering with the boarding fight once it's begun will be about as useful to your team as shooting at a pod, only its a much higher HP pod.

In this manner you're adding an additional wrinkle to ship combat but you're nerfing ships that choose to board, ensuring that boarding is a job for specialized vessels that can be prioritized in fleet engagements if necessary. They can be disrupted, scrammed, bombed, etc. However, the boarded ships are still just a secondary lease on life for ships that are already dead. As in self destructed or zero hull dead.
Carlitos Udan
Doomheim
#74 - 2013-07-13 16:09:06 UTC
This could work in faction warfare, if the boarding was maybe done against enemy freighters or those NPC hauler convoys that sometimes go by stations.

The target of the attacking boarders would be to steal or destroy equipment that would otherwise go to the ship owners state while the defenders would, obviously be there to stop the attack. Other more neutral impacts may be to effect how often certain ships and gear are seeded in trade hubs (as if the attackers succeed, the materials and items wouldn't reach the hubs though it wouldn't completely prevent the item from seeding to avoid griefers taking advantage to monopolize the items).
Ciaphas Cyne
Moira.
Villore Accords
#75 - 2013-08-09 22:56:18 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
boarding ships is unlikely to be practical under the circumstances that it either provides an 'i lose' situation to anyone who doesnt carry around marines, or it isn't realistic in the way that a dust team has to be formed and prepared in the time it takes a ship to die (literally seconds).

just to reinforce my point, boardings only happen very rarely in real life, and mostly by parties against undefended vessels (pirates vs cruise or transports). there are no combat situtaions where boarding parties have been used because it is a whole lot more practical to just blow ur enemies to pieces.



pretty much it in a nutshell. Rare on water, even rarer in space.

The OP is trying to find anyway possible to get DUST players into EVE space ships and it just does not work. Not from an RP perspective and certainly not from a gaming perspective. As other players have mentioned before, no capsuleer would allow their ship to be taken under any circumstance. Air locks open/climate control/reverse engine flush/self destruct/a standing crew much larger than any DUST team you could assemble... what ever it is, nobodies getting their ship taken from them in space by a boarding party.

It seems like it would be fun to include DUST players in our space battles, but let them fight on the planets, we can fight in the heavens. Theres just no reason you would inject soldiers into an enemy craft without thousands of numbers and full power armor(ala space marines in 40k).

What would seem much more realistic and much more balanced gameplay wise (because making mercs mandatory is not fun) is to have them be limited to cargo hold interactions. stealing a ships cargo is much easier than storming the bridge. especially when the ship is crewed by thousands.

Also loose all that nonsense about having to be in structure to board. again it makes no sense from an RP point of view and its just an awkward fix to the problems inherent in ship stealing. Take away ship stealing, and you dont need that whole thing.

If your boarding craft can approach its target, bore a whole through the armor and hull and steal some cargo, great! give them a two minute time limit before theyre caught and destroyed automatically by the ships crew to steal as much as they can carry. Each DUSTer taking a set limit of weight off the ship if they make it in time.

"buff only the stuff I fly and nerf everything else"

  • you
Ciaphas Cyne
Moira.
Villore Accords
#76 - 2013-08-09 23:02:54 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
The Aliax wrote:
This makes me think of playing football and running for to goal line, then stopping at the one yard line and playing a game of chess to see if im gonna score.



yeah. but everybody can kill you while you play chess and winning the chess game gives more points as running over the line. Comparisons like that don't work very well.


actually, that seems like a very sensible comparison, and it works for me very well :) maybe you didnt read it correctly

"buff only the stuff I fly and nerf everything else"

  • you
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#77 - 2013-08-10 00:04:28 UTC
I don't like this idea one bit for anything other than static sites like stations or a pos. It's been suggested before, but as a capsuleer I would rather self distruct than yeild my ship, also I would rather play something else than play a game that hands over my hard won stuff to other players as a game mechanic.

Why can't I just scan planets for dust bunnies to kill, why do I even need a satellite link, why can't I ruin their game, because it's unfair that's why, yet the op wants to ruin my game in a way that is equally unfair by changing the game mechanisms to suit the boarding party.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Kalanaja
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2013-08-10 00:16:56 UTC
Something like this would be very difficult to implement and have effects on the market at the same time. More ships being boarded and taken means less ships blowing up and being replaced.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#79 - 2013-08-10 00:23:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
I don't like this idea one bit for anything other than static sites like stations or a pos. It's been suggested before, but as a capsuleer I would rather self distruct than yeild my ship, also I would rather play something else than play a game that hands over my hard won stuff to other players as a game mechanic.

i think you should read it again. The core requirement of the ship takeover is that you are essentially already dead. The player who attacked you made the decision to not "finish" you but attempt a takeover instead. No dust player will get your stuff, its the eve player who shot you. And its not guaranteed that he gets your stuff - which is also a core requirement btw.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#80 - 2013-08-10 00:25:03 UTC
Kalanaja wrote:
Something like this would be very difficult to implement and have effects on the market at the same time. More ships being boarded and taken means less ships blowing up and being replaced.

or more ships get destroyed while you defend the ship you want to takeover. Nobody knows yet, its all balanceable.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value