These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Rubicon: Sleeper homing beacon

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iq Cadaen
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2013-10-29 14:43:46 UTC
Go home people, you drunk!

If that wasn't clear enough, then: No, it's a horrible idea. I guess your idea was that you could siphon off the sites from your C5/C6 static and merrily quad-escalate them in your home system?
Meytal
Doomheim
#42 - 2013-10-29 19:46:21 UTC
Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.


However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.

Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.

In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.

Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.
Sandslinger
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-10-29 22:41:46 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.


However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.

Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.

In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.

Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.



Hmmm

Holy Faeces

That's actually a superb idea !!!!!

+1
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#44 - 2013-10-30 02:18:24 UTC
Link or it didn't happen.

Sounds like a good idea, but the problem with the lack of fights is human nature. People won't be able/willing to fight a larger group, and for that reason this won't work.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#45 - 2013-10-30 02:18:40 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
LINK Sleepers go crazy for it!


More like sleeper catnip!

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Bronya Boga
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2013-10-30 02:47:01 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
LINK Sleepers go crazy for it!


More like sleeper catnip!


Don't you guys live in null now?
RedHair Shankz
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-10-30 08:02:11 UTC
Fantastic Idea....roll on more fights!

+1

Courage, above all things, is the first quality of a warrior.
Jay Joringer
13.
#48 - 2013-10-30 08:48:46 UTC
I like the idea in principle. The problem I have is that in anything other than C5/C6 space, people can just go in and run the sites anyway if they want PvE. This will only significantly benefit the higher classes - of course the risk of income loss will likely drive PvP in C4 and lower, but this needs to be something new. Something that can only be obtained by using this. Otherwise, if people don't defend their sites, you're left with the same old shooting red dots in space that we've seen for how long?

New content. New content. New content.

http://smug-bastard.blogspot.co.uk

13 are recruiting!
Bleedingthrough
#49 - 2013-10-30 11:20:41 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.


However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.

Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.

In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.

Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.


I like this.

But:
Some (maybe most) active corporations are known to despawn the sites in WHs within their region. They do this to increase the spawn rate in their home system. If the respawn was delayed by a week or so this abuse could not only be prevented but also be a means of damaging a target corporation that lives in the same region.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2013-10-30 12:19:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Meytal wrote:

Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.

In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.

Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.


I disagree. If you incorporate the ideas others have posed in this thread, and make the structure cost a lot of isk, people would field a fleet to protect it and said fleet could be jumped.

Your idea isn't bad but it's just a method to mess with people for no gain. At least with my idea you either get isk, a fight or both. The only people who lose are the risk adverse.

Admittedly i'm thinking of this from a C5/C6 perspective, where we don't tend to run sites in our static. Perhaps it would need to have an additional mechanic to remove the extra safety this device might offer. For example, the structure could increase the chance of roaming wormhole spawns... but i'm sure some people would have a problem with that to.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Meytal
Doomheim
#51 - 2013-10-30 12:57:10 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
I disagree. If you incorporate the ideas others have posed in this thread, and make the structure cost a lot of isk, people would field a fleet to protect it and said fleet could be jumped.

Your idea isn't bad but it's just a method to mess with people for no gain. At least with my idea you either get isk, a fight or both. The only people who lose are the risk adverse.

Admittedly i'm thinking of this from a C5/C6 perspective, where we don't tend to run sites in our static. Perhaps it would need to have an additional mechanic to remove the extra safety this device might offer. For example, the structure could increase the chance of roaming wormhole spawns... but i'm sure some people would have a problem with that to.

If you make your structure have a high cost, the benefits may not outweigh the costs, and it might not be used.

Remember, you're trying to provoke the risk-averse to fight (supposedly). If I'm just a Nullbear farm corp, I'm going to deploy this, and run back to my hole and hide, accepting whatever anomalies I can find. The more systems that connect to mine, the more of these that I deploy. The risk-averse loses nothing (except the initial investment) if they don't protect this, and they have no incentive to fight. They lose nothing by completely ignoring this item. By putting the control in the hands of the risk-averse, you're promoting a PvE farming option, not a PvP fight-encouraging option.

Constantly requiring special case adjustments also hints that the idea may not be the right thing to do.


If the risk-averse doesn't deal with the "Anomaly Evaporator", they lose income. Continually. Cowering behind the POS shields like a scared little girl won't make it go away like it makes the roaming gangs go away; cowering only makes your income go away.

There should not (necessarily) BE any financial gain for the attackers. You're trying to get a fight, not farming for ISK. Run your own home sites for income. Like you, I'm also thinking mostly of C5/C6 residents, though denying them of their home sites unless they PvP instead of making it easier for them to earn money Twisted (though Nullsec would be an interesting application).
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-10-30 13:07:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Meytal wrote:
If I'm just a Nullbear farm corp, I'm going to deploy this, and run back to my hole and hide, accepting whatever anomalies I can find. The more systems that connect to mine, the more of these that I deploy. The risk-averse loses nothing (except the initial investment) if they don't protect this, and they have no incentive to fight. They lose nothing by completely ignoring this item. By putting the control in the hands of the risk-averse, you're promoting a PvE farming option, not a PvP fight-encouraging option.


If they ignore the structure, they lose their sites. Granted they can just anchor their own the next day and pull sites into their system but that is a slow process and if they are unwilling to defend that structure, they might lose that to.

I personally like having lots of isk as much as i like having fights. Rewarding the bold with isk creates competition. Competition for limited resources results in conflict.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Lord LazyGhost
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2013-10-30 13:37:16 UTC
Hows about an Item that you anchor at the mouth of the WH and it keeps the hole open for longer then the 16hr limit. make logistics easyer if you have found a HS exit

the item will cost 100m or so and require fuel. drop them in a HS chain you have and it can last a few days. or how ever long u keep fueling the item. Item gets blown up and its after the 16hrs limit the WH insta closes.
Meytal
Doomheim
#54 - 2013-10-30 14:03:56 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Meytal wrote:
If I'm just a Nullbear farm corp, I'm going to deploy this, and run back to my hole and hide, accepting whatever anomalies I can find. The more systems that connect to mine, the more of these that I deploy. The risk-averse loses nothing (except the initial investment) if they don't protect this, and they have no incentive to fight. They lose nothing by completely ignoring this item. By putting the control in the hands of the risk-averse, you're promoting a PvE farming option, not a PvP fight-encouraging option.


If they ignore the structure, they lose their sites. Granted they can just anchor their own the next day and pull sites into their system but that is a slow process and if they are unwilling to defend that structure, they might lose that to.

I personally like having lots of isk as much as i like having fights. Rewarding the bold with isk creates competition. Competition for limited resources results in conflict.

Your device generates income for the user and may deny income to third-parties if the target system is inhabited. If the target system is uninhabited, like most of C5 space, it's purely an income generator.

My device only denies income to targets guaranteed to exist, as there is no intended purpose for deploying this in an uninhabited system. It is effective in W-space and Nullsec both.

There is already a lot of ISK floating around W-space (and Nullsec where mine could be useful), so yet another way to increase profits for already-rich groups doesn't sound like a good idea. More ISK sinks are good.

It sounds like we may have to agree to disagree though :)
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#55 - 2013-10-30 19:12:56 UTC
Bronya Boga wrote:
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
LINK Sleepers go crazy for it!


More like sleeper catnip!


Don't you guys live in null now?


Only when nobody will fight us in WSpace.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Ayeson
State War Academy
Caldari State
#56 - 2013-10-30 19:22:24 UTC
scotayne hawkins
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2013-11-04 13:37:21 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Would not support a method to increase farming in one's home system.


However, I -would- support a method (deployable/anchorable) that would increase the despawn rate of sites in systems. Say you anchor this thing at a planet, and it despawns the nearest anom every 6-12 hours. Should be large enough that you can't fit many in a cloaky hauler.

Differences: With the first idea, bears can deploy the module, run and hide, and take whatever may trickle in without having to present themselves to danger. Let the hole close, bear bear bear, and they're safe from the target system. It doesn't promote PvP, it makes PvE easier.

In the new idea, hostiles can deploy the module and the residents must destroy it or it will deplete the anoms from their system. If you guard it, they either risk PvP in an attempt to destroy it or suffer the consequences of never having home sites again. If they leave it forever, they will never have anoms in their own system. For C5 nullbear farmers, this could be devastating. If you are not a nullbear farm corp but you can't protect your space, you also lose.

Net result: virtually eliminate nullbear farm corps, who would never fight anyway, with some moderately-guarded anom destroyer modules. Potentially promote PvP in systems via income denial without having to grind structures.



awesome turn on a forcing peep's to pew
QT McWhiskers
MultiPass Inc.
The 5th Seal
#58 - 2013-11-05 07:30:30 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Sigh, and i thought QT's thread would be worst i would have to read this week.


See Im like the gatekeeper. While my shiptoasting is bad, its more a conduit for everyone to get onboard and make it soo much worse.

unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2013-11-05 18:36:57 UTC
An interesting idea, although it would be a nightmare to balance.
Maybe you shouldn't be able to pull in sites from holes above you is a start.
But at what cost and how long untill it is online and if it needs fuel,... .
The thing is if people can stomp on anyone they will do that.
But it would give us a thing similar to the siphons , a way to poke people in the eye and make some isk.
Doesn't have a good way to fit into the lore though.
Maybe it would make an end to small corps/alliances, maybe it would end expo's for large alliances,... .
The biggest problem i see is that in c5/c6 big alliances/corps could make isk all to easy.
If you are making isk in a home hole the defenders can easyly escalte with multiple caps and many more chars, if the fight drags out long.

No local in null sec would fix everything!
Previous page123