These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Scorched Earth Tactic

Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1 - 2013-05-07 17:17:56 UTC
I often hear about AFK Cloaking vs PvE debates.

I think I might have an idea that could take a new and interesting approach to solving this.

Permit secondary targets / destruction of resources.

What if that asteroid belt could be smart bombed into dust that noone could mine?
Or maybe those rats were emerging from a destructible wormhole or other gateway vulnerable to attack?

Sure, these resources would resett after downtime as always, but now there is an interest in actually defending them from hostile attack while they could be harvested.

Perhaps special weapons or other needs could be required, such as those needing many players working together to achieve.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#2 - 2013-05-07 17:30:02 UTC
I like this idea. Destroy their resources.

Of course, this should also mean that with a titan, we should be able to destroy moons. I'm 100% serious.

Talk about scorched earth. If it's a resource, let us take it out.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#3 - 2013-05-07 17:43:36 UTC
Ruze wrote:
I like this idea. Destroy their resources.

Of course, this should also mean that with a titan, we should be able to destroy moons. I'm 100% serious.

Talk about scorched earth. If it's a resource, let us take it out.

An interesting angle to consider.

I like the potential, but I would point out that the small station orbiting this body, presumably to harvest moon goo, would be most likely a far easier target.

Now, bombing planets to eliminate PI activities also sounds fun, but I think Dust514 covers this already.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2013-05-07 17:43:40 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I often hear about AFK Cloaking vs PvE debates.

I think I might have an idea that could take a new and interesting approach to solving this.

Permit secondary targets / destruction of resources.

What if that asteroid belt could be smart bombed into dust that noone could mine?
Or maybe those rats were emerging from a destructible wormhole or other gateway vulnerable to attack?

Sure, these resources would resett after downtime as always, but now there is an interest in actually defending them from hostile attack while they could be harvested.

Perhaps special weapons or other needs could be required, such as those needing many players working together to achieve.


This is absolutely wonderful, and your comment about where rats are coming from would address that very bizarre question I'm always left with when ships just poof into existence in sanctums and such.
Miss Altiana
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-05-07 18:26:08 UTC
I really like this idea alot, ewen the added bomb the moons. though as for the moons, maybe you dont blow the moon up, but bombard it to nullify production, so lowering its output % depending how long you can bombard, untill its been reparied.

In highsec, blowing up asteroids with ore, will need to look into, since its not "just" capsulars that mine, corporations in highsec be kinda grumpy when their areas would get depleted due to people blowing them up, these are my only consearns, as i want a realistic vibrant Eve, where actions have consecuenses.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#6 - 2013-05-07 18:35:44 UTC
Miss Altiana wrote:
I really like this idea alot, ewen the added bomb the moons. though as for the moons, maybe you dont blow the moon up, but bombard it to nullify production, so lowering its output % depending how long you can bombard, untill its been reparied.

In highsec, blowing up asteroids with ore, will need to look into, since its not "just" capsulars that mine, corporations in highsec be kinda grumpy when their areas would get depleted due to people blowing them up, these are my only consearns, as i want a realistic vibrant Eve, where actions have consecuenses.


For highsec, you'd be pissing the empires off. That's 'their' ore, hisec and losec. So you'd take a standings hit for that empire, maybe even a sec hit.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#7 - 2013-05-07 18:38:15 UTC
Ruze wrote:

Of course, this should also mean that with a titan, we should be able to destroy moons. I'm 100% serious.



And this would create minable asteroids which contain the precious precious moon goo among all other minable ores and goodies.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#8 - 2013-05-07 18:43:46 UTC
Very curious idea. Especially the moon bombing as T2 consumer I am afraid though what this would do to T2 prices. I am sure big null alliances would seek out to destroy competing sources to raise the value of their mining. Which would mean interesting times. Just hoping it would not destroy the source of T2 modules and ships.

Good idea +1 for the moon and asteroids but this needs serious consideration how the mechanism would work out.
Andrea Griffin
#9 - 2013-05-07 20:17:45 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Miss Altiana wrote:
In highsec, blowing up asteroids with ore, will need to look into, since its not "just" capsulars that mine, corporations in highsec be kinda grumpy when their areas would get depleted due to people blowing them up, these are my only consearns, as i want a realistic vibrant Eve, where actions have consecuenses.
For highsec, you'd be pissing the empires off. That's 'their' ore, hisec and losec. So you'd take a standings hit for that empire, maybe even a sec hit.
I'd like to change that with charters, but I imagine that attacking asteroids would incur a suspect flag in high sec in any case.

I'm not sure how much blowing up asteroids would really affect industry in any security space, but I don't see why we shouldn't be able to do it. Same with moons. It would provide smaller entities a way of attacking larger ones, which is something Eve really lacks.

Maybe blowing up asteroids shoudl not only destroy the asteroids, but also inhibit how much is respawned later on. This could affect industrial upgrades in null?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-05-07 20:23:40 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Ruze wrote:

Of course, this should also mean that with a titan, we should be able to destroy moons. I'm 100% serious.



And this would create minable asteroids which contain the precious precious moon goo among all other minable ores and goodies.



And it would also, eventually, lead to the complete removal of every T2 ship from the entire game.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-05-07 21:48:54 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
Ruze wrote:

Of course, this should also mean that with a titan, we should be able to destroy moons. I'm 100% serious.



And this would create minable asteroids which contain the precious precious moon goo among all other minable ores and goodies.



And it would also, eventually, lead to the complete removal of every T2 ship from the entire game.


That's probably an overstatement. The belts left over could respawn, and destroying a moon should be hard anyway.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#12 - 2013-05-07 22:08:13 UTC
Unless it was somehow unstable, a moon can't be destroyed so much as pulled apart. And that would be very difficult.
(Many moons are just cold dead rock masses orbiting planets)

These are not normally like inflated balloons, just waiting to be popped.

That said, artificial structures on them and orbiting them can be relatively fragile.

Buildings can be smashed. The sand earth and rock underneath can't be much more than rearranged. Gravity keeps em lumped roughly together for the most part.
(grossly oversimplified, i know, lol)
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-05-08 08:50:53 UTC
It's a cool idea, however i think attacking moons would ultimately be pointless because it would almost certainly be easier/faster to attack the POS mining the moon rather than the moon itself (it certainly should be)

From the hints dropped about the future during the keynote at fanfest, the idea of space colonization and destruction is next up on the cards for expansion. so these things are probably closer to a reality than most think.

Personally i'm hoping that they will make player built outposts destructible the current % of 0.0 systems with outposts is getting pretty high and there needs to be a way to limit it becoming one per system. I'd rather see us go back to the wilderness of a few per region that can be used as major staging points with active markets.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#14 - 2013-05-08 13:35:58 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
Personally i'm hoping that they will make player built outposts destructible the current % of 0.0 systems with outposts is getting pretty high and there needs to be a way to limit it becoming one per system. I'd rather see us go back to the wilderness of a few per region that can be used as major staging points with active markets.

I am seeing a definite dynamic present of CCP not forcing players to have direct risk.

They are allowing Local to warn players, as well as allowing cloaked vessels to remain undetectable. While that may all change in time, it does hold the common element of limited direct risk exposure.

Outposts represent an equal level of personal risk, at least right now.

This is why I suggest secondary targets.
If CCP has determined it is undesirable to threaten players and their assets directly, at least we can make the game objectives of mining and ratting competitive this way.

Will you be able to mine or rat, or will hostiles beat you to it and destroy these opportunities?

I want to compete.
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#15 - 2013-05-08 13:46:59 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
monkfish2345 wrote:
Personally i'm hoping that they will make player built outposts destructible the current % of 0.0 systems with outposts is getting pretty high and there needs to be a way to limit it becoming one per system. I'd rather see us go back to the wilderness of a few per region that can be used as major staging points with active markets.

I am seeing a definite dynamic present of CCP not forcing players to have direct risk.

They are allowing Local to warn players, as well as allowing cloaked vessels to remain undetectable. While that may all change in time, it does hold the common element of limited direct risk exposure.

Outposts represent an equal level of personal risk, at least right now.

This is why I suggest secondary targets.
If CCP has determined it is undesirable to threaten players and their assets directly, at least we can make the game objectives of mining and ratting competitive this way.

Will you be able to mine or rat, or will hostiles beat you to it and destroy these opportunities?

I want to compete.


the problem this presents is you will actually be removing reasons for the defending / farming players to be in space, which will ultimately reduce interaction. if you come along and destroy all of the belts for the days/week/month. people will just not play for that time.
and unless it requires a fairly serious HP grind there will be little to no way to form defense fleets in time to stop it happening.

this is the reason for reinforcement timers. it gives each side a chance to fight and compete, but i hardly see roid belts going into reinforced.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#16 - 2013-05-08 14:22:38 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
monkfish2345 wrote:
Personally i'm hoping that they will make player built outposts destructible the current % of 0.0 systems with outposts is getting pretty high and there needs to be a way to limit it becoming one per system. I'd rather see us go back to the wilderness of a few per region that can be used as major staging points with active markets.

I am seeing a definite dynamic present of CCP not forcing players to have direct risk.

They are allowing Local to warn players, as well as allowing cloaked vessels to remain undetectable. While that may all change in time, it does hold the common element of limited direct risk exposure.

Outposts represent an equal level of personal risk, at least right now.

This is why I suggest secondary targets.
If CCP has determined it is undesirable to threaten players and their assets directly, at least we can make the game objectives of mining and ratting competitive this way.

Will you be able to mine or rat, or will hostiles beat you to it and destroy these opportunities?

I want to compete.


the problem this presents is you will actually be removing reasons for the defending / farming players to be in space, which will ultimately reduce interaction. if you come along and destroy all of the belts for the days/week/month. people will just not play for that time.
and unless it requires a fairly serious HP grind there will be little to no way to form defense fleets in time to stop it happening.

this is the reason for reinforcement timers. it gives each side a chance to fight and compete, but i hardly see roid belts going into reinforced.

Roids respawn on restart for the simple reason it is not needed more frequently for balance.

They could just as easily be set to pop like rats do, at intervals throughout the day.
(It might make more sense than the current version too)

The rat spawns could also pop up at intervals as well.

What time frame would make sense, in the event you want to be able to suppress your opponents industry?
I can see a good point being made that players in one time zone should not overshadow another simply because they have access after respawn but before their peers.
monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#17 - 2013-05-08 14:27:24 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
monkfish2345 wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
monkfish2345 wrote:
Personally i'm hoping that they will make player built outposts destructible the current % of 0.0 systems with outposts is getting pretty high and there needs to be a way to limit it becoming one per system. I'd rather see us go back to the wilderness of a few per region that can be used as major staging points with active markets.

I am seeing a definite dynamic present of CCP not forcing players to have direct risk.

They are allowing Local to warn players, as well as allowing cloaked vessels to remain undetectable. While that may all change in time, it does hold the common element of limited direct risk exposure.

Outposts represent an equal level of personal risk, at least right now.

This is why I suggest secondary targets.
If CCP has determined it is undesirable to threaten players and their assets directly, at least we can make the game objectives of mining and ratting competitive this way.

Will you be able to mine or rat, or will hostiles beat you to it and destroy these opportunities?

I want to compete.


the problem this presents is you will actually be removing reasons for the defending / farming players to be in space, which will ultimately reduce interaction. if you come along and destroy all of the belts for the days/week/month. people will just not play for that time.
and unless it requires a fairly serious HP grind there will be little to no way to form defense fleets in time to stop it happening.

this is the reason for reinforcement timers. it gives each side a chance to fight and compete, but i hardly see roid belts going into reinforced.

Roids respawn on restart for the simple reason it is not needed more frequently for balance.

They could just as easily be set to pop like rats do, at intervals throughout the day.
(It might make more sense than the current version too)

The rat spawns could also pop up at intervals as well.

What time frame would make sense, in the event you want to be able to suppress your opponents industry?
I can see a good point being made that players in one time zone should not overshadow another simply because they have access after respawn but before their peers.


you'd have to set a time, that allows for it to be more worthwhile than just camping the system / station. but not so much that one group could should down massive swathes of space.

one thought that has just come to me, is that with ice belts going to anoms with a 4hr respawn, this could be your timeframe. then you'd just need to assess what would be a reasonable time to 'shut down' the belt

note: personally i look forward to the day when all mining is done in anoms like ice will be in odyssey
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#18 - 2013-05-08 14:41:28 UTC
monkfish2345 wrote:
you'd have to set a time, that allows for it to be more worthwhile than just camping the system / station. but not so much that one group could should down massive swathes of space.

one thought that has just come to me, is that with ice belts going to anoms with a 4hr respawn, this could be your timeframe. then you'd just need to assess what would be a reasonable time to 'shut down' the belt

note: personally i look forward to the day when all mining is done in anoms like ice will be in odyssey

4 hours sounds good.

It gives attackers the ability to make an effort, and shut down mining / ratting in a system for that long.

It would not kill an entire timezone, but it might infringe enough to be inconvenient. This adds value to teamwork since players in null should expect better results with cooperation.

The attackers will want to kill the spawns right before their opponents try to stop them, or else get into a PvP encounter.
If they shoot to arrive early and avoid, they won't get full denial time coverage. The resources will respawn sooner for the PvE crowd than if they waited to engage directly.
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#19 - 2013-05-08 14:48:36 UTC
I would imagine blowing up an asteroid would yield many smaller ones but not really destroy any ore. ( like Asteroids the game )

Missiles would make the chunks smaller but not really remove ore from the game, just make it tedious to mine. a 100,000 unit Veldspar rocks become four 25,000 ones.

Shooting rocks with any type of ammunition will make the rock bigger and add rare minerals, it a mass ratio thing.

Lasers are the only exception but it could cut the rocks into pieces as well.

As for PI, I think Dust will take care of that one in short order.

Moon goo needs to get from the surface to the POS, add in a cargo hauler once every 2-4 hours from surface to POS that is in flight for 10-15 minutes. Give the owner a warning that a planetary launch is happening with enough lead time to get some defenses in place. Attackers can take out the transport and add in normal salvage rules so moon goo could be stolen.

Also the Minig Charter idea from Andrea Griffin has merit, please go read it.

monkfish2345
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-05-08 14:53:45 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

4 hours sounds good.

It gives attackers the ability to make an effort, and shut down mining / ratting in a system for that long.

It would not kill an entire timezone, but it might infringe enough to be inconvenient. This adds value to teamwork since players in null should expect better results with cooperation.

The attackers will want to kill the spawns right before their opponents try to stop them, or else get into a PvP encounter.
If they shoot to arrive early and avoid, they won't get full denial time coverage. The resources will respawn sooner for the PvE crowd than if they waited to engage directly.


I guess the secondary thing you need to look at for this is that there is not a consistent number of belts per system. I don't have the figures but i'd guess the avg is 6 or 7 belts per system. which means you'd probably be wanted to set timescale to between 5 - 10 mins per belt. this means the defending side would have an envelope of 30mins - an hour to respond. and it would limit the attacking fleet to only be able to cover 4 or 5 systems. assuming a roam size of something like 20 ships.

it would hopefully leave it in a position where it was slightly more valuable than camping the system unless there is a mass of belts etc. in systems with more belts a more strategic decision would be needed to decide on the worth of removing the resource, or restricting the access to it.
12Next page