These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Recording] Wormhole Townhall With CSM Two Step

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#181 - 2012-09-07 14:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Alundil wrote:

Of course, If this happens then welp and there's really no saving the corp/wh at that point without hiring mercs for defense.


Hiring mercs isn't likely to help much if the hostiles maintain proper hole control - that said comes back to how prepared you are - even when someone maintains around the clock WH control there are still ways for a prepared corp to get reinforcements in if they take the necessary steps in advance - which are almost entirely impossible to a corp that either ignores the risk entirely or takes the attitude of dealing with it when it comes to it.

As mentioned this is one of the reasons I like WH space you can't just batphone for reinforcements to pile in when agressed.
Utsen Dari
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#182 - 2012-09-07 14:54:39 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
Drop your idea in the Features & Ideas section.

Would like to hear more ways to improve the idea by wormspace dwellers before bringing it to the eve community at large.
Klarion Sythis wrote:
The downside is, timing towers is an important defender advantage.

I feel this problem has already been solved by CCP. The mechanism POCOs use for this works well IMO: no matter when it's reinforced, the POCO comes out in a timezone when the defenders plan to be ready. Seems like the new POS design could easily incorporate that new mechanism. Stront is cheap. I could see a full bay being standard to activate whatever POCO-style reinforce settings the defender has input beforehand.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#183 - 2012-09-07 15:05:30 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Alundil wrote:

Of course, If this happens then welp and there's really no saving the corp/wh at that point without hiring mercs for defense.


Hiring mercs isn't likely to help much if the hostiles maintain proper hole control - that said comes back to how prepared you are - even when someone maintains around the clock WH control there are still ways for a prepared corp to get reinforcements in if they take the necessary steps in advance - which are almost entirely impossible to a corp that either ignores the risk entirely or takes the attitude of dealing with it when it comes to it.

As mentioned this is one of the reasons I like WH space you can't just batphone for reinforcements to pile in when agressed.


Absolutely true. It's also one of the reasons I like WHs as well. Was just mentioning an edge case solution to the problem of surprise T3 buttsexx

I'm right behind you
Kelhund
State War Academy
Caldari State
#184 - 2012-09-07 15:42:38 UTC
If anything, we need a fix for the T3 OMGWTFBBQBUTTSEXXXX problem going on :|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#185 - 2012-09-07 19:35:06 UTC
Utsen Dari wrote:
Thinking on this further: the way the current POS reinforce system works is sort of backward. Attacker fights a PVE battle against automated posguns, then defender gets two days to form up a fleet to defeat attacker. Automated posguns are just barrier to entry for the fight; attacker must bring a fleet that is at least this tall, so to speak, to have a battle. Posguns also do not actually help defender keep the system unless defender is a bunch of insomniacs who are online 23-7, assuming attacker's fleet is indeed this tall.


ArrowWhat if the mechanic worked in reverse? Consider:

Initial battle: Attacker tags a POS as seiged with minimal work, and posguns cannot be killed at this time. Perhaps attacker onlines some sort of siege module similar to the SBU in nullsec.

Final battle: Defender gets 2 days to form a fleet that fights alongside their posguns, which are still alive. Attacker has to defeat defender's fleet + posguns to win.


Advantages:
1. No barrier to entry for attacker. All they have to do is tag the pos for seige.
2. No more boring PVE fights against automated guns.
3. Defender actually gets some legitimate terrain advantage in the fight that matters.
4. Less logging in to find defenses already down, leading to hopelessness --> destruct all switch.
5. If defender throws destruct all switch before final battle, attacker can just leave and does not actually have to fight the posguns at any time.
6. Defender no longer has to worry about getting attacked at Ridiculous O'clock because it's no longer possible to defang the POS while defense is asleep or at work.
7. EPIC BATTLES with folks manning guns while fleet action goes down becomes the norm Big smile

EDIT further thoughts: if the attacker is onlining some object to tag the POS for siege, perhaps the mechanic could be: defender has to blow that thing up to stop the siege, or else their POS continues to be vulnerable once the reinforce timer is up. So defender MUST sortie to kill it. Battle rages until pos+guns are down or until the attacker's siege thingy is down. Attacker's siege thingy could be a pricey item so you can't just spam it around to troll folks without significant cost.


I like this sort of idea. If you want to spend some time refining it some and post it to F&I, send me an eve mail with the link and I will pass it on.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#186 - 2012-09-07 22:48:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
One of the problems with the current POS design is that there is no middle option between a full system assault and doing nothing to a system. As it is now, tomorrow or perhaps the day after will return any tower or poco that was not taken to armor to full health without any effort or expense. As such, there is no compelling need to defend structures from a harassment force. Perhaps a system could be constructed which would encourage protecting ones system from harrasment.

I would prefer that it be harder to remove defended and maintained structures than it is now, easier to remove abandoned ones and that there be a middle option wherein my time and efforts attacking cost the defenders time and efforts to maintain their home. A tower could be both more and less fragile than it is now if a smaller attack than a full system assault were to be meaningful because it actually disrupts the defenders lifestyle. For example it could be designed such that a fairly weak attack is sufficent disrupt industrial activities, shutting off refineries, silo farms, drug labs, production lines, research labs, fitting services, access to goods and the like until such time as repair supplies are purchased/made and hauled in to return the structure to health.

With a system like this the POS could be more vulnerable to attack without making it easier to actually remove it and take its contents. As it stands it is perhaps too easy to actually take everything from someones home, yet it is too hard to meaningfully disrupt their activities. Perhaps if it were easy to disrupt undefended structures people would undock, move around and defend their structures. More ships undocked and moving about would make my time in game better.
Mal Nina
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#187 - 2012-09-08 02:33:08 UTC
I believe much of the confussion about what is being proposed is based on symantics and current term usage.


Currently we have 3 pos sizes. In the future there will be a "pos" like structure that can be added on to till some max limit is reached. The question is should that size limit be restricted based on WH type? the same could be said should that size limit be based on HS, LS and null? One might conclude those questions are being asked. (I would hope) So the first thing we must all do is suspend our current understanding of "pos" design and remember this is a whole new way of looking at that design. Should a C1 allow you to create a system wide spanning "POS"? or should there be a some limit imposed?



For the most part I am against limits. The limits of WH mass really help in the structure of what will work and what will not. So you set up a huge pos in a C1... logistics thorugh the mass retrictions of your connection should be the limiting factor. But that said, until more is known about the propsed changes it is futule to have an arguement on limits for the new POS system.






Now for more issues due to forcefield removal.

It is common practise for corperations to throw ships out of a hanger to baffle the enemy as to the number of players online. Unless you have eyes on each and everypos in system one cannot know what can be brought to the fight. I think this is a viable tactic and would hate to see it go away no matter how much it sucks to verify what is in the system and put scouts on each pos. There has to be ways to do subterfuge with the new pos structures. so only having piloted ships show as docked at a pos would be a huge intel change to the current system and not one that might be good. (no I hate this tactic but it is viable one)



as other have said the ability to warp off is a key issue....

How will logging in and off work... will we log in on the station?
or from space as we currently do?


But until we know more details about what is proposed and any restrictions that might be considered there is only so much we can do. However, at this time what we can do is draw up a list of things we would like to see.



Like
Modularity gets my vote as an indy

pos set up away from just moons - check

some mechanism that allows a safe dock and undock - check
mechanism to put unmanned ships safetly at the station that can be seen- check
allowing dscan from a safe location - check


Dislike
Arbitrary limits on POS size based on environment... let logistics dictate).




how CCP makes this happen I really do not care (unless it is daft fo course) Big smile

debate the issues, add to the list and give our CSM something to think about and report.



stupid saved draft function...
Kelhund
State War Academy
Caldari State
#188 - 2012-09-08 02:46:17 UTC
Mal Nina wrote:
I believe much of the confussion about what is being proposed is based on symantics and current term usage.

Currently we have 3 pos sizes. In the future there will be a "pos" like structure that can be added on to till some max limit is reached. The question is should that size limit be restricted based on WH type? the same could be said should that size limit be based on HS, LS and null? One might conclude those questions are being asked. (I would hope) So the first thing we must all do is suspend our current understanding of "pos" design and remember this is a whole new way of looking at that design. Should a C1 allow you to create a system wide spanning "POS"? or should there be a some limit imposed?


For the most part I am against limits. The limits of WH mass really help in the structure of what will work and what will not. So you set up a huge pos in a C1... logistics thorugh the mass retrictions of your connection should be the limiting factor. But that said, until more is known about the propsed changes it is futule to have an arguement on limits for the new POS system.



You're prolly right, however limiting factors will need to be introduced. As I mentioned earlier, I think the best way to go about the new mechanic is to have skills limiting what you can do with your POS. Need a refinery? Have the "deep space refining" skill. Need to use storage silos? have the "deep space storage solutions" skill. Wouldn't be too hard to implement. Have the new modules do 90% of what the current ones do, and have the appropriate skill give a 5%/level boost, so the net effect would be a +15% modifier should the skill be trained to 5. Goes for tower fuel usage, shield resistances......essentially the station begins to function the same way your ships do, and you're able to tailor it to your needs at a whim.

A work around for the docking is to issue each station with a directional scanner, accessible via a pop-up window or a button on the sidebar. They're issued with every ship, why not the station? Now you can be walking around your station, working on your ship fittings or your mobile lab or what have you, and you can still be watching D-scan. If CCP implements a mechanic where you are dumped out of your station at a random spot on a 360 degree disc around the midsection of the tower, you'd be unable to bubble in the occupants unless you put up a bubble in the path of every celestial - and hope your enemies dont have a SS waaay off the planetary disc. To keep people from throwing up a bubble on top of you, use the current mechanics of being unable to anchor things within X distance of an online POS and put it at like 60k or so, to give the occupants some wiggle room. Just some more suggestions...
Mal Nina
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#189 - 2012-09-08 03:32:23 UTC
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!
Pancake King
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#190 - 2012-09-08 07:32:17 UTC
Mal Nina wrote:
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!


Agree with T3 subsystem changing. Disagree with clones.
mr roadkill
Silent but Violent
#191 - 2012-09-08 09:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: mr roadkill
Pancake King wrote:
Mal Nina wrote:
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!


Agree with T3 subsystem changing......


Yes we would like this Big smile, the clones would be simplifying things too much though I think.
Klarion Sythis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#192 - 2012-09-08 14:34:27 UTC
mr roadkill wrote:
Pancake King wrote:
Mal Nina wrote:
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!


Agree with T3 subsystem changing......


Yes we would like this Big smile, the clones would be simplifying things too much though I think.


I wouldn't consider it simplifying anything since, as it stands, a variety of clones are very impractical to use. I have never logged off in the wormhole with a crystal set because if an armor fleet is called, all I'm doing is adding a couple bil to my killmail if I die. If people are just flying around with learning implants and a couple of hardwires, sure, I can see this point of view. However, if you're willing to fly in Crystals, Slaves, Talismans, etc. then this feature suddenly becomes amazing. To be clear, this has nothing to do with clone jumping; only clone swapping at a single location. If I choose to install 8 billion isk in implants in my POS, then that's all the more I stand to lose if it gets blown up.
Kelhund
State War Academy
Caldari State
#193 - 2012-09-08 15:06:59 UTC
mr roadkill wrote:
Pancake King wrote:
Mal Nina wrote:
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!


Agree with T3 subsystem changing......


Yes we would like this Big smile, the clones would be simplifying things too much though I think.



Cant agree with putting cloning bays in the stations. Not only is it not compatible with the theory that WH systems are "off the grid" so to speak, it also destroys the risk vs reward of getting your hands on expensive materials at the risk of being blown all the way back to New Caldari when you get podded
XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#194 - 2012-09-08 16:41:53 UTC
Changing sub-systems in j-space pos' is a must have.

Changing clones should only be allowed inside, and only if we can transport a clone into the wh and store in our pos. We shouldn't be able to clone jump into wh and/or out of it.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#195 - 2012-09-08 20:24:10 UTC
Klarion Sythis wrote:
mr roadkill wrote:
Pancake King wrote:
Mal Nina wrote:
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!


Agree with T3 subsystem changing......


Yes we would like this Big smile, the clones would be simplifying things too much though I think.


I wouldn't consider it simplifying anything since, as it stands, a variety of clones are very impractical to use. I have never logged off in the wormhole with a crystal set because if an armor fleet is called, all I'm doing is adding a couple bil to my killmail if I die. If people are just flying around with learning implants and a couple of hardwires, sure, I can see this point of view. However, if you're willing to fly in Crystals, Slaves, Talismans, etc. then this feature suddenly becomes amazing. To be clear, this has nothing to do with clone jumping; only clone swapping at a single location. If I choose to install 8 billion isk in implants in my POS, then that's all the more I stand to lose if it gets blown up.



I would like to see the swapping of clones within a station too for that ^ very reason. Not clone jumping from station/region to another. Just swapping for implant reasons.

I'm right behind you
Pancake King
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#196 - 2012-09-09 00:25:58 UTC
Alundil wrote:
Klarion Sythis wrote:
mr roadkill wrote:
Pancake King wrote:
Mal Nina wrote:
Forgot to add... clones and T3 susbsystem changing in the POS in a WH!


Agree with T3 subsystem changing......


Yes we would like this Big smile, the clones would be simplifying things too much though I think.


I wouldn't consider it simplifying anything since, as it stands, a variety of clones are very impractical to use. I have never logged off in the wormhole with a crystal set because if an armor fleet is called, all I'm doing is adding a couple bil to my killmail if I die. If people are just flying around with learning implants and a couple of hardwires, sure, I can see this point of view. However, if you're willing to fly in Crystals, Slaves, Talismans, etc. then this feature suddenly becomes amazing. To be clear, this has nothing to do with clone jumping; only clone swapping at a single location. If I choose to install 8 billion isk in implants in my POS, then that's all the more I stand to lose if it gets blown up.



I would like to see the swapping of clones within a station too for that ^ very reason. Not clone jumping from station/region to another. Just swapping for implant reasons.


It's part of the risk/reward in WH space though. If you're willing to fly in Crystals/Slaves/Talismans, then you need to be willing to lose those Crystals/Slaves/Talismans.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#197 - 2012-09-09 00:50:32 UTC
I don't think anyone is saying that they aren't willing to lose them. But different implant sets are useful for different ships/setups no? It would be excellent to be able to swap between those separate setups.

Note all swappable clones would be housed in a POS structure and so vulnerable to eviction casualties.

I'm right behind you
Lexylia
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#198 - 2012-09-10 01:37:10 UTC
Utsen Dari wrote:
Thinking on this further: the way the current POS reinforce system works is sort of backward. Attacker fights a PVE battle against automated posguns, then defender gets two days to form up a fleet to defeat attacker. Automated posguns are just barrier to entry for the fight; attacker must bring a fleet that is at least this tall, so to speak, to have a battle. Posguns also do not actually help defender keep the system unless defender is a bunch of insomniacs who are online 23-7, assuming attacker's fleet is indeed this tall.


ArrowWhat if the mechanic worked in reverse? Consider:

Initial battle: Attacker tags a POS as seiged with minimal work, and posguns cannot be killed at this time. Perhaps attacker onlines some sort of siege module similar to the SBU in nullsec.

Final battle: Defender gets 2 days to form a fleet that fights alongside their posguns, which are still alive. Attacker has to defeat defender's fleet + posguns to win.


Advantages:
1. No barrier to entry for attacker. All they have to do is tag the pos for seige.
2. No more boring PVE fights against automated guns.
3. Defender actually gets some legitimate terrain advantage in the fight that matters.
4. Less logging in to find defenses already down, leading to hopelessness --> destruct all switch.
5. If defender throws destruct all switch before final battle, attacker can just leave and does not actually have to fight the posguns at any time.
6. Defender no longer has to worry about getting attacked at Ridiculous O'clock because it's no longer possible to defang the POS while defense is asleep or at work.
7. EPIC BATTLES with folks manning guns while fleet action goes down becomes the norm Big smile

EDIT further thoughts: if the attacker is onlining some object to tag the POS for siege, perhaps the mechanic could be: defender has to blow that thing up to stop the siege, or else their POS continues to be vulnerable once the reinforce timer is up. So defender MUST sortie to kill it. Battle rages until pos+guns are down or until the attacker's siege thingy is down. Attacker's siege thingy could be a pricey item so you can't just spam it around to troll folks without significant cost.



Sorry this idea is not really well tought....


In PURE theory its a neat idea and sounds good in all but in reallty it will be the carebear dream....

why ?

because in reallty it will look like this: Attackers come and declare "your pos is now sieged"

defenders: oh okay thanks for warning we will just fly out all valuable stuff and only leave a rawr tower with nothing worth shotting it there..... you cant even bubble the pos because pos guns or defenders could risk free destroy them....also they can log out thier alts with hauler/orkas/caps with their stuff in gets even easier. Also you couldnt punish thos special people who dont stront up thier pos like this .... REF system is fine like it is ..... reffing a pos does not take that long about 1-3hrs depends if u have a dread handy or not...

pos guns are not mean to make your pos unkillable its just to make it unattractive to shot it ... a small viliage looks easier to smash than a heavy armed fortress ...

And it doesnt really make a difference if you have pos guns after ref or befor because all depends on how many ppl u can bring after the nearly 2 days rf...
Nash MacAllister
Air
The Initiative.
#199 - 2012-09-10 12:13:05 UTC
Lexylia wrote:
defenders: oh okay thanks for warning we will just fly out all valuable stuff and only leave a rawr tower with nothing worth shotting it there.....


So? This is what happens right now, better than 90% of the time I would estimate. Taking down towers with the hope of getting mega loot is non-existent. I mean hell, all they have to do is load up the Orcas and log off in the POS shields. Come back in 2 weeks and get rolling again. The only time that doesn't work is if you intend to occupy the system and set up a tower where the old one was. Rare...

As far as this "issue" is concerned, it is going to be dependent on what replaces POS shields and how CCP intends to handle undocking.

I kinda like the original idea or some variant. I guess cruise missiles would be finally worth putting up? Lol

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#200 - 2012-09-11 12:54:22 UTC
I think clones and implants should be reconsidered entirely, not just how they are (or not) used in wormhole space but throughout the game. The mechanics seem very old and a bit odd, I think.