These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Wormhole degrading bomb

Author
Malkev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#41 - 2011-12-15 02:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Malkev
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
The ideal situation (in my opinion) would be to have the players treat the bombs as ideal in certain situations, but otherwise not worth the money or effort.

This ideal situation wouldn't happen to be one where you want to collapse a hole when it may be a risky to do so via conventional means would it?

*sigh* Three pages, I'm done. Let it die please.
Raid'En
#42 - 2011-12-15 19:39:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Raid'En
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Secondly, a pack of orcas can destroy a hole in the time it takes for the session change timer to run down. Warp them through, and you'll be able to warp back before your cloak wears off. Less than a minute, closed hole, guaranteed. Is this objectionable?

you're comparing slow ships very valuable that can get stuck on wrong side, or ganked easily, with cheaps, quick, and cloaked sleath bombers ?
there's something wrong on your logic.

i'm not against the idea of a weapon to close WH, bombs seems good for lore, but horrible from gameplay point of view.

the ships to launc your bombs must be immobilized for a moment, it must be in danger.
for example it could be a system like the one of heavy interdictor, or like a siege/triage mode.
you can't move (or very slowy) during a moment while you use your closing module.

if you do it this way i'm okay, but there's no way i'll accept something doable with a frigate sized ships and a covert ops cloak.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#43 - 2011-12-16 01:41:39 UTC
Raid'En wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Secondly, a pack of orcas can destroy a hole in the time it takes for the session change timer to run down. Warp them through, and you'll be able to warp back before your cloak wears off. Less than a minute, closed hole, guaranteed. Is this objectionable?
you're comparing slow ships very valuable that can get stuck on wrong side, or ganked easily, with cheaps, quick, and cloaked sleath bombers ?
there's something wrong on your logic.

i'm not against the idea of a weapon to close WH, bombs seems good for lore, but horrible from gameplay point of view.

the ships to launc your bombs must be immobilized for a moment, it must be in danger.
for example it could be a system like the one of heavy interdictor, or like a siege/triage mode.
you can't move (or very slowy) during a moment while you use your closing module.

if you do it this way i'm okay, but there's no way i'll accept something doable with a frigate sized ships and a covert ops cloak.
I was going to let this thread die, but I had to come back and say that those are great comments. Big smile

You raise some good points. I was hopeful to dig into the specific vulnerabilities of stealth bombers, but I didn't get the opportunity. If these worked like most bombs, they'd have to be deployed 30k away from the target. A pilot could essentially align cloaked up, decloak and fire the bomb without having to lock, then they could be well out of scrambler range and warping off to a safe spot before the bomb detonates. Would it make more sense to have the bomb have a shorter range and travel slower? Make the range something like 15k, and have it travel at 1.5k/sec? That would mean you would be in range of just about any ship camping the hole. Additionally, it could have less HP, making it vulnerable to smartbombs. What do you think? Bombs stay on grid even after you leave it, but missiles in flight vanish when you leave the grid; if there was a way to require the bomber to stay on grid as you suggest, that could be an interesting feature. Any of this sound feasible? I'm open to suggestions.

The orca thing was just to show that it is possible to close a wormhole very quickly with massive ships. You're right, it's not an equal comparison, but at the time I was responding to someone who was objecting to the idea of quickly popping a wormhole. I just wanted to point out that there are currently ways to quickly pop a wormhole without these bombs. You're right, it's not the same thing, but in the circumstances...
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#44 - 2011-12-16 14:12:51 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Krios Ahzek wrote:
Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass.


Or a Battleship with a ton of armor platting.
True, but there is an upper limit to the battleship (even with afterburners) option. If this bomb took away half of a wormhole's mass that could easily be billions of kg (an unfitted orca is 250 million kg). If it was a fixed or variable amount, it could conceivably replace several round trips with a single shot.

The exact amount of mass 'damage' inflicted is still up in the air; I don't know what would be fair, but the harder these are to make and use, the more 'damage' they should do to the wh.

You, know there's always the possibility to make another bomb that can extend the life of a wormhole, rejuvenating it's age and mass allowance.


So you want to take the hole-control aspect of wormhole PvP away completely? That would make it nearly impossible for an invaded system to bring in reinforcements.

This idea is so bad anyone supporting it should be embarassed.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#45 - 2011-12-16 15:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
The wormholes that people "travel" through are really just colorful facades put over the exact same code that governs stargates. The thing that closes wormholes is a variable in a CCP database on a server in London. The reason why mass and time are currently the only ways to close a wormhole is because those are the only two things that affect that particular variable.

Now, as a practical matter, I do agree with you. Firing a bomb of any existing type at a wormhole will have no effect, because as you point out, these methods do not degrade wormholes. However, CCP can create items that would affect them. That is what I am proposing; a new way to affect these variables.


Eve's game mechanics are built around scifi lore. I was offering an explanation of why a wormhole-closing bomb wouldn't fit within lore (lack of mass). You go off on how it's all a bunch of ones and zeroes and can be reprogrammed as CCP sees fit. You're clearly a lot of fun at parties.

edit: after catching up with the thread, I'd be okay with this IF the mineral expense of these "bombs" was equivalent to the mineral expense of a ship that would deplete the same amount in a wormhole. In other words, you can build a one-shot bomb, or you can build a battleship. This way it would be the same as simply shoving empty ships through the wormhole until it closed.

For those who think there should be an inherent risk involved in closing wormholes: my solution is that if someone is willing to put such significant resources into mitigating a little bit of risk, they deserve the relative safety. They also deserve to be quite a bit poorer than those wormhole corps who keep their hard-earned isk and minerals and close wormholes the old-fashioned way.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#46 - 2011-12-16 16:15:31 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
So you want to take the hole-control aspect of wormhole PvP away completely? That would make it nearly impossible for an invaded system to bring in reinforcements.
I'm suggesting adding more tools that can be used by PvP and PvE players to manipulate wormholes to their tactical advantage.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
The wormholes that people "travel" through are really just colorful facades put over the exact same code that governs stargates. The thing that closes wormholes is a variable in a CCP database on a server in London. The reason why mass and time are currently the only ways to close a wormhole is because those are the only two things that affect that particular variable.
Eve's game mechanics are built around scifi lore. I was offering an explanation of why a wormhole-closing bomb wouldn't fit within lore (lack of mass). You go off on how it's all a bunch of ones and zeroes and can be reprogrammed as CCP sees fit. You're clearly a lot of fun at parties.
There are lots of different interpretations of wormholes in fiction, and EVE has it's own lore. Consider the Talocan, who were "masters of Spatial Manipulation and Hypereuclidean Mathematics". This race likely knew how to make wormholes. Don't you wonder why no wormholes lead to Jove space, despite their proximity to the rest of k-space? It implies to me that wormhole inhibition technologies exist and are used by the Jove to isolate their systems. Thousands of years ago, humankind traveled through Eve Gate to get here, and when that wormhole sealed shut behind us considerable effort would have been made to study, understand and re-open it. Imagine the frantic populace, cut off from Earth, all urging their scientists to figure out a way to get back home. Decades of research and experimentation probably went towards understand the fundamental mechanics of wormholes, even as civilization crumbled around them. Perhaps there is some lost knowledge, protected by the Jove or hidden in Sleeper databanks that explains a piece of the puzzle.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
For those who think there should be an inherent risk involved in closing wormholes: my solution is that if someone is willing to put such significant resources into mitigating a little bit of risk, they deserve the relative safety. They also deserve to be quite a bit poorer than those wormhole corps who keep their hard-earned isk and minerals and close wormholes the old-fashioned way.
I could not have said it better myself. We disagree on the cost, but I completely agree with the essence of your point.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#47 - 2011-12-16 16:20:49 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
So you want to take the hole-control aspect of wormhole PvP away completely? That would make it nearly impossible for an invaded system to bring in reinforcements.
I'm suggesting adding more tools that can be used by PvP and PvE players to manipulate wormholes to their tactical advantage.


Same difference, regarding the language. You effectively end a corp or alliance having the ability to reinforce or rescue a corp or ally because it simply becomes way to easy to close and roll holes. It would have been impossible, for example, for the Aquila hole to have been liberated when the Russians invaded if every hole simply could be blown up instead of requiring ships to actually jump through them to take the mass off of them.

This would severely break wormhole mechanics. It's a horrible idea in light of that.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#48 - 2011-12-16 16:32:53 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Same difference, regarding the language. You effectively end a corp or alliance having the ability to reinforce or rescue a corp or ally because it simply becomes way to easy to close and roll holes. It would have been impossible, for example, for the Aquila hole to have been liberated when the Russians invaded if every hole simply could be blown up instead of requiring ships to actually jump through them to take the mass off of them.

This would severely break wormhole mechanics. It's a horrible idea in light of that.
I'm not familiar with that specific incident - do you have a link or any details? I live in a wormhole with a static to nulsec, and so if someone comes into our hole and picks a fight, none of our allies are going to even be able to bring forces to come to our rescue.

Again, I have to point out that there are a lot of different ways to do this; I'm not proposing that these bombs insta-pop wormholes. I agree with you that a device that could take out a healthy wormhole in one shot would be uberpowerful and would likely be abused. Here is just a brief list of ideas - I'm sure there are more.
Idea The bombs could only take time off of a wormhole's life, not mass.
Idea They could reduce the current available mass by a fraction (by half or by a third), which would mean they could never truly close a hole.
Idea The bombs could reduce a variable amount of mass (and/or time) "damage", making it less predictable.
Idea They could have a fixed "damage" of mass (and/or time)

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#49 - 2011-12-16 16:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Same difference, regarding the language. You effectively end a corp or alliance having the ability to reinforce or rescue a corp or ally because it simply becomes way to easy to close and roll holes. It would have been impossible, for example, for the Aquila hole to have been liberated when the Russians invaded if every hole simply could be blown up instead of requiring ships to actually jump through them to take the mass off of them.

This would severely break wormhole mechanics. It's a horrible idea in light of that.
I'm not familiar with that specific incident - do you have a link or any details? I live in a wormhole with a static to nulsec, and so if someone comes into our hole and picks a fight, none of our allies are going to even be able to bring forces to come to our rescue.

Again, I have to point out that there are a lot of different ways to do this; I'm not proposing that these bombs insta-pop wormholes. I agree with you that a device that could take out a healthy wormhole in one shot would be uberpowerful and would likely be abused. Here is just a brief list of ideas - I'm sure there are more.
Idea The bombs could only take time off of a wormhole's life, not mass.
Idea They could reduce the current available mass by a fraction (by half or by a third), which would mean they could never truly close a hole.
Idea The bombs could reduce a variable amount of mass (and/or time) "damage", making it less predictable.
Idea They could have a fixed "damage" of mass (and/or time)



Aquila incident.

More on it...

The second post especially, read through the linked battle reports etc. and you'll understand why I consider this to be a bad idea. Although I can appreciate the desire from a single corps perspective, it affects things much larger. It effects the entire world.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#50 - 2011-12-16 23:58:21 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Aquila incident.

More on it...

The second post especially, read through the linked battle reports etc. and you'll understand why I consider this to be a bad idea. Although I can appreciate the desire from a single corps perspective, it affects things much larger. It effects the entire world.
I am a little dubious about getting reinforcements from one wormhole system to another, but maybe the alliances span so many systems that it is actually feasible. Way out of my league.

I am trying to grasp your argument, though. Here is what I think you're saying (correct me if I am wrong).
Quote:
Because the Russians were using an orca to close wormholes, the defenders were able to assault the wh closing gang and stop them from closing off the hole so reinforcements could get in. If the Russians were using these wormhole bombs, it would have played out differently.
That would be a fair point, but I don't see why different means bad.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#51 - 2011-12-18 05:08:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Aquila incident.

More on it...

The second post especially, read through the linked battle reports etc. and you'll understand why I consider this to be a bad idea. Although I can appreciate the desire from a single corps perspective, it affects things much larger. It effects the entire world.
I am a little dubious about getting reinforcements from one wormhole system to another, but maybe the alliances span so many systems that it is actually feasible. Way out of my league.

I am trying to grasp your argument, though. Here is what I think you're saying (correct me if I am wrong).
Quote:
Because the Russians were using an orca to close wormholes, the defenders were able to assault the wh closing gang and stop them from closing off the hole so reinforcements could get in. If the Russians were using these wormhole bombs, it would have played out differently.
That would be a fair point, but I don't see why different means bad.


Different means bad in this case simply because you take away the ability for reinforcements to ever arrive. You completely break wormhole system assault PvP by reducing it to a faceroll once you get your fleet and bombs in there. Instead of the chance of reinforments arriving, it's over before it begins.

Don't be dubious about the ability to get reinforcements... I was there. That was one hell of a weekend. We wound up having to come in through null if I recall, and then it was two or three holes deep to get in there. Once hole control was won, the scanners did the rest. Such an epic battle would have been reduced to a footnote: system invaded and lost. There would have been no write-ups... no coalition of wormholes alliances answering the call to arms to help defend friends and allies...

No... you'd be taking away far, far too much from the game for what really is nothing gained, except a little safety in rolling holes, which is damaging enough.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2011-12-18 07:35:49 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Different means bad in this case simply because you take away the ability for reinforcements to ever arrive. You completely break wormhole system assault PvP by reducing it to a faceroll once you get your fleet and bombs in there. Instead of the chance of reinforments arriving, it's over before it begins.

Don't be dubious about the ability to get reinforcements... I was there. That was one hell of a weekend. We wound up having to come in through null if I recall, and then it was two or three holes deep to get in there. Once hole control was won, the scanners did the rest. Such an epic battle would have been reduced to a footnote: system invaded and lost. There would have been no write-ups... no coalition of wormholes alliances answering the call to arms to help defend friends and allies...
If the main objection is that alliances and big groups can't dominate w-space as easily, I say that is even more reason to implement this plan immediately.

Wormholes aren't condusive for alliances and mega corps. They are inherently isolated systems that can only sustain a handful of pilots. You can probably attest that finding the route to get reinforcements into your wormhole was likely a giant pain in everyone's ass; wormhole geometry isn't good for that kind of mobilization. W-Space is elementally divisive.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#53 - 2011-12-18 17:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Ingvar Angst
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Different means bad in this case simply because you take away the ability for reinforcements to ever arrive. You completely break wormhole system assault PvP by reducing it to a faceroll once you get your fleet and bombs in there. Instead of the chance of reinforments arriving, it's over before it begins.

Don't be dubious about the ability to get reinforcements... I was there. That was one hell of a weekend. We wound up having to come in through null if I recall, and then it was two or three holes deep to get in there. Once hole control was won, the scanners did the rest. Such an epic battle would have been reduced to a footnote: system invaded and lost. There would have been no write-ups... no coalition of wormholes alliances answering the call to arms to help defend friends and allies...
If the main objection is that alliances and big groups can't dominate w-space as easily, I say that is even more reason to implement this plan immediately.

Wormholes aren't condusive for alliances and mega corps. They are inherently isolated systems that can only sustain a handful of pilots. You can probably attest that finding the route to get reinforcements into your wormhole was likely a giant pain in everyone's ass; wormhole geometry isn't good for that kind of mobilization. W-Space is elementally divisive.


You actually allow the big alliances to dominate with these things. Right now, even a small corp can scream for help from Narwhals or the like and actually get it. You would doom every small corp in wormholes to being unable to ever get help if invaded, be that help from other alliances members, mercenaries, etc.

It's critical that people be allowed a chance to reinforce their systems if needed, to call in the calvary when all hope is lost. You would break that, making the initial invasion itself the final act instead of the events of the next day and a half.

I'll tell you what... bounce this off someone in Narwhals for example... they specialize in these type of mercenary reinforcements. Get their experienced opinions on what it would mean is someone could simply "blow up" holes and maintain hole control that way. How would it effect their income or style of play. Ask someone in Aquila if they would likely have been successfully reinforced if the Russians could have blown up every hole as it appeared. My experience is my own, but I take a lot in and do fairly well at seeing the bigger picture... but these guys are far more knowledgable then I'll ever be.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#54 - 2011-12-18 19:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Tell Annoh
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You actually allow the big alliances to dominate with these things. Right now, even a small corp can scream for help from Narwhals or the like and actually get it. You would doom every small corp in wormholes to being unable to ever get help if invaded, be that help from other alliances members, mercenaries, etc.
I don't think it is as dramatic as you say. If these bombs never exist, it isn't going to stop fleets from closing holes.
Ingvar Angst wrote:
It's critical that people be allowed a chance to reinforce their systems if needed, to call in the calvary when all hope is lost. You would break that, making the initial invasion itself the final act instead of the events of the next day and a half.
You'd still have the chance to reinforce your system; nothing would prevent you. I am assuming that the Russians were already offline when you were bringing in the calvalry, so I don't see how this changes anything.

At this point, I am leaning towards the 2/5ths + 2 hour Solution. The bomb would remove 40% of the wormhole's current total mass allowance and 2 hours of it's life. So, the mass of the wormhole would go like this:
100% --- 60% --- 36% --- 21.6% ---12.96% --- 7.776%
As you can see, each successive bomb takes less and less mass away from the total. This is Zeno's dichotemy paradox. Practically, this would mean that 5 bombs would need to be fired at a hole before it goes on the verge of collapse (under 10% total mass). If these bombs are 20 million apiece and the blueprints are rare enough, that would seem about right to me.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#55 - 2011-12-18 23:56:49 UTC
I would like to propose a "thread-degrading bomb" which I would launch at this thread, so I could remove it from the forum at no personal risk.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2011-12-18 23:59:04 UTC
Sad thing of it is...the op is so delusional to think that the reasons "I want" "Because I think" "I" "I" "I" are good enough to think that his idea has a snow balls chance in hell of being considered when its quite obvious its been rejected/refused/trashed... that he keeps going forward regardless.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#57 - 2011-12-19 03:51:51 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
You actually allow the big alliances to dominate with these things. Right now, even a small corp can scream for help from Narwhals or the like and actually get it. You would doom every small corp in wormholes to being unable to ever get help if invaded, be that help from other alliances members, mercenaries, etc.
I don't think it is as dramatic as you say. If these bombs never exist, it isn't going to stop fleets from closing holes.
Ingvar Angst wrote:
It's critical that people be allowed a chance to reinforce their systems if needed, to call in the calvary when all hope is lost. You would break that, making the initial invasion itself the final act instead of the events of the next day and a half.
You'd still have the chance to reinforce your system; nothing would prevent you. I am assuming that the Russians were already offline when you were bringing in the calvalry, so I don't see how this changes anything.

At this point, I am leaning towards the 2/5ths + 2 hour Solution. The bomb would remove 40% of the wormhole's current total mass allowance and 2 hours of it's life. So, the mass of the wormhole would go like this:
100% --- 60% --- 36% --- 21.6% ---12.96% --- 7.776%
As you can see, each successive bomb takes less and less mass away from the total. This is Zeno's dichotemy paradox. Practically, this would mean that 5 bombs would need to be fired at a hole before it goes on the verge of collapse (under 10% total mass). If these bombs are 20 million apiece and the blueprints are rare enough, that would seem about right to me.


Ugh... you don't get it. RIght now, there's a risk in closing holes. You need to jump through and there's the risk that company on the other side keeps you from jumping back. This risk is necessary for wormhole ops to take place. There needs to be the chance for hole control to be wrestled from one side or the other.

You're bombs idea... fails. Someone knocks the hole to second crit with no risk... now it's impossible for a fleet to get through to reinforce allies or whatever. This cripples wormholes ops and is an embarassingly bad idea.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#58 - 2011-12-19 06:16:37 UTC
I really don't care about reinforcements. That isn't even a factor I'm considering.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2011-12-19 08:41:41 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I really don't care about reinforcements. That isn't even a factor I'm considering.


Nope...you just want the "i win" bomb in dealing with uninvited guests and closing down wormholes.

Be honest now.

Traditional methods are too expensive/too risky for you to deal with.

You couldn't care less about reality or the facts concerning large scale operations let alone game mechanics.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#60 - 2011-12-19 13:08:28 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I really don't care about reinforcements. That isn't even a factor I'm considering.


This is why you fail. There's a hell of a lot more going on in the game than what you alone care about.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.