These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Siege Towers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xander Rotineque
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2017-04-23 09:40:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Xander Rotineque
Theres a lot of talk about timezone tanking structures nowadays, and making undefended upwell structures easier to remove. I'd like to suggest the following idea: Siege towers.

Goals -
- Reduce timezone tanking
- provide options against timezone tanking
- Make removal of undefended structures easier
- encourage fights rather than AUTZ structure bashes

Concept - siege towers would be:

- Relatively cheap
- have limited/no defenses and docking capability, but cannot be targeted by the "target structure"
- No reinforce timers, but would have a damage cap/repair timer/(warp disruption on attacking) and similar mechanics
- anchored within 150km of a target structure
- have a 24 hour anchoring period (to prevent someone from ninjaing up a siege tower seconds before your vuln timer ends)
- share vulnerability with the target structure (to include being invulnerable while target structure is reinforced).

Structures with a siege tower anchored on them do not become invulnerable(meaning they remain vulnerable until reinforced or the siege tower is destroyed). Once reinforced, target structures follow normal reinforcement delay (in days) for said structure in said space, but come out of reinforce in the same time slot (+/- an hour or so) as when the structure was reinforced.

Purpose - siege towers allow a defender a chance to defend their structure during the vulnerability window, but also allow an attacker to essentially "call bullsh**" on someones vulnerability timer. If the defender can win a fight during their vulnerability timer, then the siege tower is destroyed, the attacker is now out a siege tower, and the structure resumes normal vulnerability mechanics. If the defender is attempting to "timezone tank" and cannot mount a defense during the vulnerability timer, then this allows a determined attacker to attack whenever they want after the defender has failed to destroy a defenseless structure during the vulnerability window.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#2 - 2017-04-23 09:48:37 UTC
nope,
The ability for the defenders to have their vulnerability timer coincide with their strongest online time has been worked into the Timers on purpose. and you want to circumvent this?

-1
Xander Rotineque
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2017-04-23 10:01:02 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
nope,
The ability for the defenders to have their vulnerability timer coincide with their strongest online time has been worked into the Timers on purpose. and you want to circumvent this?

-1


They get to defend it during that timer. They just have to kill a defenseless structure during that timer to prove that they actually can defend the structure during their vulnerability window. This shouldn't be a problem for any group actually having their vulnerability coincide with their strongest online time. This is to provide options against groups setting their timer to AUTZ to simply avoid fights. Assuming your AUTZ is actually stronger than theirs, you win the fight (as you would normally) and get a free several-hundred-isk-killmail bonus. Assuming you were just trying to avoid a fight, your structure now remains vulnerable until you undock and kill the tower.

Essentially, if you can't win a fight during your vuln window, then your structure remains vulnerable. Given you picked your strongest online time as your vulnerability period, nothing changes.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#4 - 2017-04-23 10:15:56 UTC
IOW, instead of adapting to the defender's strength you want to put down an AFK structure that forces the target to be vulnerable during your preferred engagement time. If you think that a target is "timezone tanking" and will actually be poorly defended and vulnerable during its vulnerability hours then bring a fleet and destroy it.
Xander Rotineque
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2017-04-23 10:28:28 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
IOW, instead of adapting to the defender's strength you want to put down an AFK structure that forces the target to be vulnerable during your preferred engagement time. If you think that a target is "timezone tanking" and will actually be poorly defended and vulnerable during its vulnerability hours then bring a fleet and destroy it.



How would it force a defender to be vulnerable during the attackers timezone? If you actually set your structure to be vulnerable during your strong TZ, then both structures become vulnerable during your strong TZ. Undock, kill the siege tower(which has no RF timers), your structure becomes invulnerable again.

There's basically three possibilities:

1) The defender sets a TZ that is their strong TZ, and the attacker cannot contest in that TZ. Tower dies during the vulnerability window. Outcome is the same, nothing changes.

2) The defender sets a TZ that is their strong TZ, but the attacker is stronger in that TZ. The structure is RF'd, and vulnerability mechanics continue undisturbed, and everyone wonders why the hell you anchored a 300m isk siege tower on a group that has their vulnerability timers set during their active TZ. Aside from the decoration of the tower being on grid, nothing changes.

3) The defender is trying to avoid fights, and sets their vulnerability window when they think no one is online, and cannot defend during that tz. The attacker comes in and anchors a tower during the attackers timezone. The defenders can see the tower anchoring for at least 24 hours, and then the two can fight over it during the next time the target structure would be vulnerable. If the defenders cannot defend their structure DURING THEIR VULNERABILITY WINDOW, then the structures remain vulnerable.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2017-04-23 12:07:51 UTC
Xander Rotineque wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
IOW, instead of adapting to the defender's strength you want to put down an AFK structure that forces the target to be vulnerable during your preferred engagement time. If you think that a target is "timezone tanking" and will actually be poorly defended and vulnerable during its vulnerability hours then bring a fleet and destroy it.



How would it force a defender to be vulnerable during the attackers timezone? If you actually set your structure to be vulnerable during your strong TZ, then both structures become vulnerable during your strong TZ. Undock, kill the siege tower(which has no RF timers), your structure becomes invulnerable again.

There's basically three possibilities:

1) The defender sets a TZ that is their strong TZ, and the attacker cannot contest in that TZ. Tower dies during the vulnerability window. Outcome is the same, nothing changes.

2) The defender sets a TZ that is their strong TZ, but the attacker is stronger in that TZ. The structure is RF'd, and vulnerability mechanics continue undisturbed, and everyone wonders why the hell you anchored a 300m isk siege tower on a group that has their vulnerability timers set during their active TZ. Aside from the decoration of the tower being on grid, nothing changes.

3) The defender is trying to avoid fights, and sets their vulnerability window when they think no one is online, and cannot defend during that tz. The attacker comes in and anchors a tower during the attackers timezone. The defenders can see the tower anchoring for at least 24 hours, and then the two can fight over it during the next time the target structure would be vulnerable. If the defenders cannot defend their structure DURING THEIR VULNERABILITY WINDOW, then the structures remain vulnerable.



4) The defender has TWO structures, and you put this up on one while they are defending the other...
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#7 - 2017-04-23 12:32:01 UTC
Citadels and other Upwell structures are intended to replace completely invulnerable stations as our homes. Their destruction should require a major commitment from the attacker. Defenders should have home court advantage - including choice of timezone.

I only believe this advantage for the defenders should apply if the structure is fueled. Unfueled structures should be attackable at any time and should have a single 24 hour reinforcement timer - same as the new Blood Raider shipyards.
Xander Rotineque
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2017-04-23 14:47:09 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
4) The defender has TWO structures, and you put this up on one while they are defending the other...


It anchors for 24 hours and doesn't actually reinforce anything by itself, it just keeps the structure vulnerable, so I don't really see the issue with owning two structures.

But lets play this out, you own 100 structures. They (GigX) anchor 100 of these, at a cost of 30 billion isk. Assuming your structures are actually in an area that you can actually defend, sitting a single defending catalyst on a siege tower should break the damage cap. Sure, in a sense, it could lead to a fozzie-sov esque battle with a hundred nodes going (and no defensive regen)... but unlike fozzie sov, the attacker commits a couple hundred mil per node, and has to anchor them in the first place. The structures also don't reinforce themselves, so its not that different then your enemy announcing he's going to put a battleship on a structure 24 hours from now, only that battleship isn't even going to fight back. So maybe you're right, at 30 minutes per tower, it might be too easy for the attacker to use. Would halving this time make a difference? Cutting it to a third? A sixth? Is 5 minutes per structure too long for a defender?

However I will grant you this - sieging multiple structures so far away from each other that there is a noticable delay in travel time would allow you to shift the vulnerability window of a structure by that travel time. (Meaning that the defender would have to first destroy something closer to home, then travel to the other structure, and during that time, the structure gets reinforced - setting the next defensive timer for the structure 1 hour later than it would normally be for a second timer.) But it only shifts the next timer by that much time, so that difference in reinforcement timers is only as big as your empire, I guess. Where exactly the difference between encouraging healthy territorial expansion and curbing over-extension begins and ends is going to be something everyone will disagree on. But lets be realistic, if you lose a structure because of a 1 hour delay in the defense timer, you probably weren't going to be capable of defending the structure anyways, and you can go pretty damn far in a mach in an hour.
Railroad Cop
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2017-04-24 00:54:06 UTC
Xander Rotineque wrote:

They get to defend it during that timer. They just have to kill a defenseless structure during that timer to prove that they actually can defend the structure during their vulnerability window. This shouldn't be a problem for any group actually having their vulnerability coincide with their strongest online time. This is to provide options against groups setting their timer to AUTZ to simply avoid fights. Assuming your AUTZ is actually stronger than theirs, you win the fight (as you would normally) and get a free several-hundred-isk-killmail bonus. Assuming you were just trying to avoid a fight, your structure now remains vulnerable until you undock and kill the tower.



As an AUTZ player, yes please please please do this idea.


I'm already a massive Entosis trolololo, by doing this you'd allow me to Upwell Trolololo as well.


Being realistic tho, they really need to have a long hard think and overhaul how much of an utter pain in the ass it is to remove abandoned / hostile structures. You have larger groups rolling around dropping them left right and centre to force a fight. Whelp enough ships and you'll destroy it - until they drop another. Don't nuke it before it's online, they get many more opportunities to dunk you when you try.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#10 - 2017-04-24 07:24:17 UTC
Currently the defender wins a draw, because the tower goes into repair mode and then reinforces if you can keep the heat off long enough. For example, griffins vs a logi'ed T3C fleet.
This would change it to attackers winning a draw.

This is bad, use it or lose it is the direction we want to go so it's not all about the largest DPS blob in grid.