These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Player controlled/created deadspace pockets.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kelidrich
Omicron Persei 8
#1 - 2013-09-25 20:48:24 UTC
I've tossed around this idea in my head quite a bit. It has so many possible configurations/uses that I haven't posted it until now. The basic idea is as the subject says, players/corps/alliances either find or create deadspace pockets to set up shop in. As with missions, they would be linked via player built acceleration gates. The acceleration gate and a deadspace beacon would be required to "link" the two similar to jump bridges linking to one another currently. All within a single system, possibly even a max AU range.

Modified versions of POS modules could be anchored, acceleration gates could limit ship sizes as they do now, but would also limit the mass/power/cpu factor of the modules that could exist in the deadspace pocket it grants access to. In this configuration, it actually provides an option for POS replacement. Opposing players could hack the gates (some time/skill required so defenders could rally).

All normal deadspace concepts could apply. You can only warp to the initial acceleration gate, deadspace pockets could be chained for further protection. Opposition could destroy the deadspace beacon in a pocket to "collapse" the pocket thus opening it up for direct warp. Owners could cycle a pocket in the chain to quickly slip in defenders deeper in, but of course would risk letting the opposition in at the same time.

This basic idea would need work, but provides possible solutions for POS substitutes, farms and fields type gameplay, better use of the vastness of unused space in solar systems, more for explorers to find etc.
Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-09-25 23:20:21 UTC
It's a neat idea, but I don't think it would work for a couple reasons.

1) What's stopping someone from anchoring the acceleration gate next to a dickstar, or even inside of one's shield? You could end up with very difficult to assail regions of "safe space", which I personally don't think is a good idea. Even less so in WH where things are supposed to be more dangerous then K-space.

2) Titans. Players jump a Titan (or Titans) into an area of space, drop/activate the beacon, BAM, you now have Titans in what might possibly be an even safer area then inside of a POS bubble (at least you hear about AWOXing resulting in the loss of Titans parked inside of POS's, with this that would be even harder).

It's true that I'd like to see more use of deadspace for players other then the mission role it's currently relegated to, but it's hard to come up with one that isn't broken or useless. Even if deadspace sites were static and players could anchor structures in them it's hard to think of a reason why you would be in one when it would be more convenient to be outside of one and use MWDs. Either that or it would be broken due to (presumably) an inability to bridge in attackers and/or the ability to know where enemies will drop out of warp and be ready with defenses.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#3 - 2013-09-26 05:04:53 UTC
CCP said they are going to put in player made jumpgates if i recall correctly and some new 'space' to play in so perhaps this idea is being kicked around at CCP already.

As long as they dont screw up high sec with an idea like this im good with it.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Yolo
Unknown Nation
#4 - 2013-09-26 05:20:38 UTC
Gigan Amilupar wrote:
It's a neat idea, but I don't think it would work for a couple reasons.

1) What's stopping someone from anchoring the acceleration gate next to a dickstar, or even inside of one's shield? You could end up with very difficult to assail regions of "safe space", which I personally don't think is a good idea. Even less so in WH where things are supposed to be more dangerous then K-space.


Same functions that today prevents people from anchoring more then one POS per moon, eg; They would not allow it on the same grid.

Gigan Amilupar wrote:
2) Titans. Players jump a Titan (or Titans) into an area of space, drop/activate the beacon, BAM, you now have Titans in what might possibly be an even safer area then inside of a POS bubble (at least you hear about AWOXing resulting in the loss of Titans parked inside of POS's, with this that would be even harder).

Remember when MWD's did not work in gated deadspaces? Well imagin the same setting could be used on normal cynofields, maybe only allow cov-ops cynofield. who knows.

Gigan Amilupar wrote:
It's true that I'd like to see more use of deadspace for players other then the mission role it's currently relegated to, but it's hard to come up with one that isn't broken or useless. Even if deadspace sites were static and players could anchor structures in them it's hard to think of a reason why you would be in one when it would be more convenient to be outside of one and use MWDs. Either that or it would be broken due to (presumably) an inability to bridge in attackers and/or the ability to know where enemies will drop out of warp and be ready with defenses.


Yeah, it would have its uses. it would be cool to be able to setup series of gates to build a labyrinth.

- since 2003, bitches
kidkoma
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-09-26 05:23:40 UTC
Cool, one question though... (lol, there is always more then one question)

What benefit would be gained from player owned dead space pockets? Would I gain access to new manufacturing facility/techniques? Would I get access to safe mining belts or other resource gathering type activitys? Would It spawn valuable rats? Would there be a tactical advantage to having a gate set up rather then, say a pos? really all these questions boil down to "What would a private dead space pocket offer me in return of my investment in it?"

Its an interesting Idea, what would a good price (materials or isk) for a private jump gate/ dead space pocket be?
Kelidrich
Omicron Persei 8
#6 - 2013-09-26 15:34:50 UTC
kidkoma wrote:
Cool, one question though... (lol, there is always more then one question)

What benefit would be gained from player owned dead space pockets? Would I gain access to new manufacturing facility/techniques? Would I get access to safe mining belts or other resource gathering type activitys? Would It spawn valuable rats? Would there be a tactical advantage to having a gate set up rather then, say a pos? really all these questions boil down to "What would a private dead space pocket offer me in return of my investment in it?"

Its an interesting Idea, what would a good price (materials or isk) for a private jump gate/ dead space pocket be?


My first draft got lost in the ether... so forgive me if this second attempt at a response seems disjointed.

I mostly see the idea as a POS replacement and the potential for TCU/I-HUB defense that is not based on massive hitpoints and reinforcement cycles.

The reason I hadn't posted before is that there are so many possible ways to tweak the idea, that I didn't want people to lock onto the ideas in my first post and dismiss it. Questions involved in developing the concept include, but not limited to:

1) Are they naturally occurring or player generated?
a) Natural: This allows CCP to determine exactly how many and where they are located. You would need a way to probe them out and enter them the first time. After that you could online the object that would make sure it did not collapse. Once that was up and running (on current pos fuel possibly) you would have to find a location to anchor the acceleration gate that provides access.
b) Player Generated: This opens up questions on how many are allowed in an area/system, where they can be placed, how quickly they can be created etc. It allows for ideas like providing an additional level of protection for mining operations without making the mining operation impervious to attack.

2) Can the acceleration gates control ship size restrictions?
a) Yes: Forces attackers to have a variety of ships in a fleet or to attack in waves depending on what the next acceleration gate in a chain allows. The ship restrictions would have an impact on the amount of power/cpu available in the pocket for defensive modules and would apply to the defenders ship sizes as well.
b) No: Reduces customization, but allows for attackers/defenders to use it without hassle.

3) Acceleration gates: I see them as being hackable by the enemy. I see two methods of hacking, one that makes your ship appear as "blue" to the gate and gain access for yourself (for scouting purposes) or a longer process of hacking (duration needed to hack would need tweaking) that unlocks the gate for all people to fully invade. This also begs the question of whether or not an acceleration gate can be destroyed prior to invading the deadspace pocket it grants access to and how that would effect said pocket. This of course goes back to question 1 as well. If they are natural and you destroy the gate, you'd have to probe for the pocket and gain entrance the original way. If player generated, then perhaps the pocket would collapse and open the original space to normal probing/warping etc. However, I am leaning towards some level of invulnerability for the acceleration gate so that the attacker wouldn't just always bulldoze their way through by destroying gates. Another hack could allow for access in the next x minutes to enter the deadspace pocket at a location other than the beacon, to allow the attackers to come from an area in the pocket the defenders are not expecting.

4) Cyno's and deadspace. I would see it as no normal cyno's, but yes to covert cyno's. This benefits the solo hacker doing recon and opens up the possibility for him to bridge covert ships directly into the pocket and/or deeper into a maze defense for I-HUB/TCU chains. As with current POS mechanics, certain "civilian" modules like hangars, labs etc in a pocket would need to be nigh invulnerable while the pocket is maintained, so people could use them as they do POS now, but defensive modules that normally exist outside the POS shield would still be attackable.

5) Super storage: If this is a POS replacement then the acceleration gate would need to allow all ships access, however this creates a bit of a bottleneck for the enemy to watch to see who is storing what through the gate. Whether or not this is a problem is up to the designer. Perhaps acceleration gate pockets that allow all ship types do allow normal cyno's inside the pocket they give access to.

While these aren't all the questions that can be raised with the concept, you can start to see the myriad of possibilities and configurations that the basic concept allows for. It could be used as a sov defense replacement only, as a pos replacement only, or both. Expanding on it further, it could be used by players to make more use of all the space that is out there in solar systems that is currently unused. Instead of CCP having to add more systems as the player base expands, the use of deadspace allows CCP to use what is currently there and allow it to be used, developed and defended by multiple parties. Imagine wars being fought over sections of a solar system instead of whole systems. Or more simply attackers can set up forward bases in enemy territory that mask their composition etc unless the defenders hack in and get someone in the pocket to see what the enemy is amassing.