These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New structures] Defence mechanism – pro Automated defence
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
#1 - 2015-10-13 09:13:53 UTC
As far as I understand the idea still is to remove automatic defence for the new structures. I thought about that a bit and I think it would be better to keep it. Automated defence provides content and gameplay that not necessary has to be boring. CCP said it would prefer the direct player interaction of the actual fight. This is ok, but it should not exclude indirect player interaction, for example of players in different time zones. Automated defence provides gameplay, content and interaction, even if the involved parties cannot or don’t want to interact directly.

For the ones planning and deploying a new structure, like in a tower game, the gameplay consist of good decisions and careful preparation that lead to a successful defence or at least nice kill mails. It provides a wide variety of options and strategies that can be explored, which of course may also include the combination with active defence fleets.

For those attacking, the challenge is to outsmart the automated defence. Content is provided, even if the defender is not present or willing to engage. And this content is not limited to a small time window outside of the attacker’s primetime.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2 - 2015-10-13 11:02:09 UTC
Lim Hiaret wrote:
As far as I understand the idea still is to remove automatic defence for the new structures. I thought about that a bit and I think it would be better to keep it. Automated defence provides content and gameplay that not necessary has to be boring. CCP said it would prefer the direct player interaction of the actual fight. This is ok, but it should not exclude indirect player interaction, for example of players in different time zones. Automated defence provides gameplay, content and interaction, even if the involved parties cannot or don’t want to interact directly.

For the ones planning and deploying a new structure, like in a tower game, the gameplay consist of good decisions and careful preparation that lead to a successful defence or at least nice kill mails. It provides a wide variety of options and strategies that can be explored, which of course may also include the combination with active defence fleets.

For those attacking, the challenge is to outsmart the automated defence. Content is provided, even if the defender is not present or willing to engage. And this content is not limited to a small time window outside of the attacker’s primetime.

The whole point of the new citadel design, like the new sov system, is to force players to have to show up. No longer can you hide behind passive defenses, both active ones like POS guns and intrinsic ones like HP walls for your protection. You are intended to have to work to protect your stuff and interact with your attackers, even if that is to shoo the trolls away.

This proposal is essentially the opposite, so -1.

That said, maybe there is some room for a "tower defense" style gameplay in Eve. Perhaps some of the other structures could feature that, but it really would be tough to balance when the game does not limit what you bring to attack. It would become just like suicide ganking where any defense just sets a bar of what you need to bring to win and is thus very binary. If you bring too little you have no hope, and if you want victory you just blob with enough to overwhelm the defenses. It is not apparent to me how you could make such a mechanism scale with the diverse composition of potential attackers where it would provide engaging gameplay and not just be another uninteresting bar for the defender to hide behind.

Better to just let the players fight it out and have structures be the terrain and the objective.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#3 - 2015-10-13 11:43:06 UTC
Living in wh space, nothing pleases me more than looking at the kb and finding another scout that has fallen victim to one of my towers. I get the show up part - I'm all for it. On the other hand I think non automated defenses give scouts free roaming and intel. Not such a big deal in null and lowsec. In wh space it's a big deal.

Allowing a cloaked scout to sit off of my station is fair play, but me being able to set up my tower to make him work for it across all TZ is also fair play. Given the cloaky nature of wh space, the isolation of wh space and that wh mechanics limit the ability to cover your station 23/7 an automated tower defense system is reasonable.

I think it's more than fair if null/LS get space magic to protect their assets on station destruction then it is reasonable to allow automated defenses against cloaked scouts checking on wh stations. I'm not against cloaking (I'm all for it) - I just think there should be a counter. A bubble trap to pull them in, decloak them and wonk them if they aren't good enough to escape is reasonable in wh space.
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
#4 - 2015-10-13 13:41:53 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

The whole point of the new citadel design, like the new sov system, is to force players to have to show up. No longer can you hide behind passive defenses, both active ones like POS guns and intrinsic ones like HP walls for your protection. You are intended to have to work to protect your stuff and interact with your attackers, even if that is to shoo the trolls away.


The problem of this is in my opinion, that it requires a complicated time zone mechanic like the vulnerability window and extended phases where the structure is invulnerable by game design. Outside of the vulnerability window you can’t play with the new structure and it provides no content or gameplay. Invulnerable means there is no player interaction direct or indirect. The current POS on the other hand does provide content even while the owner is not around. You can go and shoot it whenever you want. You can die to it. The new structures would just be dead lumps of metal.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-10-13 13:55:09 UTC
Lim Hiaret wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

The whole point of the new citadel design, like the new sov system, is to force players to have to show up. No longer can you hide behind passive defenses, both active ones like POS guns and intrinsic ones like HP walls for your protection. You are intended to have to work to protect your stuff and interact with your attackers, even if that is to shoo the trolls away.


The problem of this is in my opinion, that it requires a complicated time zone mechanic like the vulnerability window and extended phases where the structure is invulnerable by game design. Outside of the vulnerability window you can’t play with the new structure and it provides no content or gameplay. Invulnerable means there is no player interaction direct or indirect. The current POS on the other hand does provide content even while the owner is not around. You can go and shoot it whenever you want. You can die to it. The new structures would just be dead lumps of metal.


Dead lumps of metal that provide services, markets, mining support etc etc to get people in space. It really depends on how this all pans out but EvE is a lot more than just shooting things.

I'm still unsure about citadels not having automated defences. I have suggested that defence automation should be via a rig or modules so that an important choice must be made by the citadel owner. Another option would be that you can fit automates defences but you cannot maintain the damage mitigation systems due to the processing of target information and the power draw of the guns when in permanent hot standby.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#6 - 2015-10-13 14:18:08 UTC
Lim Hiaret wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:

The whole point of the new citadel design, like the new sov system, is to force players to have to show up. No longer can you hide behind passive defenses, both active ones like POS guns and intrinsic ones like HP walls for your protection. You are intended to have to work to protect your stuff and interact with your attackers, even if that is to shoo the trolls away.


The problem of this is in my opinion, that it requires a complicated time zone mechanic like the vulnerability window and extended phases where the structure is invulnerable by game design. Outside of the vulnerability window you can’t play with the new structure and it provides no content or gameplay. Invulnerable means there is no player interaction direct or indirect. The current POS on the other hand does provide content even while the owner is not around. You can go and shoot it whenever you want. You can die to it. The new structures would just be dead lumps of metal.

The invulnerability window is the trade-off that allows someone to force a fight. It would impossible to make a structure without automated defenses that the aggressor chooses the time to attack as almost no group is able to provide that level of commitment, but by making the structure invulnerable 95% of the time, the owner now has the responsibility to show up to defend the remaining 5% of the time.

I agree it makes rivalries between time zones more difficult, but I think on balance it is a better system for getting people to show up to defend. If you allow people to be invulnerable 95% of the time and have some automated defenses, you really are removing the incentive to show up.

I realize that is not your proposal, which would keep the structure constantly vulnerable (like the current POSes) and rely on automated defenses for when the owner is logged off, but that does not facilitate player interaction. I think the new system is better and puts the onus to defend squarely on the shoulders of the structure/sov owner like it should be. NPC and AI should not be a substitute for player-player interaction which this system is designed to facilitate.

In any case I think it is too late for any major changes in direction now. Vulnerability windows have already been implemented for Sov and these structures will be made the same for consistency. But they did recently change the plan back from entosis to a HP grind so who knows.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#7 - 2015-10-13 17:05:52 UTC
I'd just like an option for folks to be able to set a trap that will auto engage a scout that I have uncloaked. I'm not asking for the station to auto defend against an agressing fleet during the vulnerability period. I just want a nosey scout to work for his intel.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#8 - 2015-10-13 18:27:47 UTC
The real problem with no auto defences is it forces the owner to babysit it constantly rather than be out creating content.
Not only does the owner have to show up to defend when someone is attacking it, they have to show up even when the attacker doesn't.
The second part is the big issue here, the owner has to be there every single vulnerability period, regardless of any threat.
Which actually decreases the content being created.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#9 - 2015-10-13 18:41:12 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Living in wh space, nothing pleases me more than looking at the kb and finding another scout that has fallen victim to one of my towers. I get the show up part - I'm all for it. On the other hand I think non automated defenses give scouts free roaming and intel. Not such a big deal in null and lowsec. In wh space it's a big deal.

Allowing a cloaked scout to sit off of my station is fair play, but me being able to set up my tower to make him work for it across all TZ is also fair play. Given the cloaky nature of wh space, the isolation of wh space and that wh mechanics limit the ability to cover your station 23/7 an automated tower defense system is reasonable.

I think it's more than fair if null/LS get space magic to protect their assets on station destruction then it is reasonable to allow automated defenses against cloaked scouts checking on wh stations. I'm not against cloaking (I'm all for it) - I just think there should be a counter. A bubble trap to pull them in, decloak them and wonk them if they aren't good enough to escape is reasonable in wh space.



POS killmails are absolutely hilarious and the ridiculous space magic asset security mechanics are totally absurd. I think the large radius of citadels might make them effective at decloaking scouts if you're careful to anchor them exactly on the warp-in for a celestial object and the possibility of aoe close-in weapons would make them particularly good at scout blapping.

There has to be some kind of balance between an unmanned citadel being somewhat able to resist being reinforced by a solo bomber and one needing a 20 man battleship fleet to engage one. I'm honestly not sure how to balance that.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#10 - 2015-10-13 18:47:47 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
The real problem with no auto defences is it forces the owner to babysit it constantly rather than be out creating content.
Not only does the owner have to show up to defend when someone is attacking it, they have to show up even when the attacker doesn't.
The second part is the big issue here, the owner has to be there every single vulnerability period, regardless of any threat.
Which actually decreases the content being created.

Nah. You have at least 30 minutes to get back to your citadel, or log in an alt to man the defenses. You don't have to baby-sit your structure at all. And if you missed one window for some reason, because of a "good fight" or you were unable to log in, you have two more vulnerability windows to actually show up to defend. And even then if you miss all three, you don't even lose your stuff (except in wormholes).

Besides, it's not like you would ignore an attack while you were logged in anyway and trust your automated defenses, nor would they do anything to a prepared attacker. I agree with CCP that there is no reason to have them at all, especially now that the structures are invulnerable almost all the time.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
#11 - 2015-10-14 14:03:36 UTC
Yes you could have services, markets and such. But with the exception of highsec, I doubt that people will open their citadels to others.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#12 - 2015-10-14 15:15:23 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
The real problem with no auto defences is it forces the owner to babysit it constantly rather than be out creating content.
Not only does the owner have to show up to defend when someone is attacking it, they have to show up even when the attacker doesn't.
The second part is the big issue here, the owner has to be there every single vulnerability period, regardless of any threat.
Which actually decreases the content being created.

Nah. You have at least 30 minutes to get back to your citadel, or log in an alt to man the defenses. You don't have to baby-sit your structure at all. And if you missed one window for some reason, because of a "good fight" or you were unable to log in, you have two more vulnerability windows to actually show up to defend. And even then if you miss all three, you don't even lose your stuff (except in wormholes).

Besides, it's not like you would ignore an attack while you were logged in anyway and trust your automated defenses, nor would they do anything to a prepared attacker. I agree with CCP that there is no reason to have them at all, especially now that the structures are invulnerable almost all the time.




In wh space it's not about vulnerability windows or catching the next timer. It's about sitting in a corps system and monitoring them over a period of time to determing the assets needed to get in there and take them out. It's a whole different game. In wh there is no space magic to protect your stuff when your station gets wonked. Unlike sov null it's for reals. Which is fine. I'd just like the guy warping to my station to have a reasonable chance of getting incinerated if he isn't careful. Again, there are few WH corps that have 23/7 coverage (pro hint - a lot of folks are in wh to get away from all that).

It's not just about the vulnerablity window. It's about the time spent before the invasion gathering intel. I'm asking that if CCP makes a loot exception for wh (no space magic protection of your stuff) maybe when they code that out, they could code in some form of scout zapper for the guys keeping book on my system. I'll do the work and set up the decloaking space trap. I just want a watch dog for when I'm asleep or at work (1 beagle is fine - I don't need a pack of wolves).

As far as the station guns - has there been any discussion about who can man them? Do I have to give away the keys to the kingdom to allow someone to be a station gunner?
Lim Hiaret
Hiaret Family
#13 - 2015-10-15 16:13:02 UTC
WH space is very different from 0.0, low- or highsec. That is actually a different issue with the new structures. I'm not even sure if the current model would fit into WH at all. Personally I would like to see structures that specifically fit to the needs in WH. Some kind of an outpost would be more appropriate for WH than a citadel. For example, you don’t need markets in WH. Without asset safety markets wouldn’t work anyways. You need flexibility and a mixture of different services. This might be achievable by different rigs and modules.

The disadvantage of the vulnerability window over an active defence becomes even more obvious in WH. Because of the invulnerable state, somebody could come in when you are out of you prime time, place his structure and be save for a week. The WH resident could not do anything against it. To overcome that, a blockade unit was suggested in WH forums. But that sounds more like the introduction of a kind of mini-sov. Not sure how I feel about that.