These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Terrorism

Author
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2014-09-12 08:38:11 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Luwc wrote:
collison physics ! thats what I want

400mm plated rifters with a **** ton of explosives in their cargo holds.

imagine jita undock.

Eve would be so beautiful


You mean a single catalyst or maybe a mere cruiser can now suicide gank every ship in the game, ie. 1 man suicide ganks against freighters/haulers and there would be nothing the freighter/hauler pilot could do against you? Sure, that would be "so beautiful".

By the way: Terrorism already exists in the form of suicide ganking, hotdrops and PVP in general.


That isn't terrorism the only people affected are the one guy getting killed and losing his stuff I'm talking about larger scaled attacks that affect potentially large groups of people system wide in null sec without the need to call on thousands or hundreds of other to participate in hitting F1 to achieve a result.

Also Again hacking a single structure is not what i'm aiming at here and is too small a scale for what i'm talking about implementing. I'm talking system wide effects that effect everyone in system and other strategic objectives such as stations and starbases. This currently does not exist as a mechanic in game in any form. All current mechanics affect single targets or structures and can be mitigated easily and therefore do not have a significant impact on any given community at large.
Sigras
Conglomo
#22 - 2014-09-12 08:41:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
baltec1 wrote:
Sigras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Any tools you add for small groups to hit large ones will be used by large groups much more effectivly against small groups.

tell me exactly how a bomb that does more damage as it effects more targets would be used by larger groups more effectively against small groups?

By it's very nature it would only work against bigger groups.

We can use a lot more of them.

sure you can launch 100 bombs that all do 0 damage because they dont hit enough targets to be useful

Im thinking damage = (NumberOfShipsHit / 2) ^ 3

so you're in a 50 man fleet and each of you launches one of these bombs at my 10 man fleet and vice versa

our 10 bombs hit your fleet for 15,625 damage each meaning 156,250 damage to each ship in your fleet

your 50 bombs hit my 10 man fleet for 125 damage each meaning 6,250 damage to each ship in my fleet.

Still think more = better?

Getting around these problems just takes a bit of creativity and forethought...
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#23 - 2014-09-12 08:42:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Luwc wrote:
collison physics ! thats what I want

400mm plated rifters with a **** ton of explosives in their cargo holds.

imagine jita undock.

Eve would be so beautiful


You mean a single catalyst or maybe a mere cruiser can now suicide gank every ship in the game, ie. 1 man suicide ganks against freighters/haulers and there would be nothing the freighter/hauler pilot could do against you? Sure, that would be "so beautiful".

By the way: Terrorism already exists in the form of suicide ganking, hotdrops and PVP in general.


That isn't terrorism the only people affected are the one guy getting killed and losing his stuff I'm talking about larger scaled attacks that affect potentially large groups of people system wide in null sec without the need to call on thousands or hundreds of other to participate in hitting F1 to achieve a result.


No, he is not talking about that. He is talking exactly about what I described in my first paragraph about the quoted comment. Nothing else.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-09-12 08:45:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiera Malukker
Jane Shapperd wrote:
I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2

Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time

Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa

sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine


This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue.

Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death.

No pvp, suicide ganking and pvp in general are not terrorism all of those things are variations on ship to ship pvp and nothing more. If anything Awoxing and corp theft are closer to the concept of terrorism because it affects more than one or a few individuals and is something that can effect the community at large in certain circumstances and is as much a psychological attack as it is physical because it can really dampen the moral of an entire corp/alliance. Yes large enough losses and other types of fights can have this effect but usually such engagements require more than a few people to implement.
Jane Shapperd
Quafe Commandos
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#25 - 2014-09-12 08:51:51 UTC
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2

Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time

Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa

sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine


This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue.

Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death.


You'd have to consider this , what prevents the pilot who implented the effect from using an alt to fail the hack to ensure locking the effect up
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2014-09-12 08:55:24 UTC
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2

Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time

Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa

sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine


This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue.

Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death.


You'd have to consider this , what prevents the pilot who implented the effect from using an alt to fail the hack to ensure locking the effect up


As stated its a brain storming session not a full concept so there would be a lot of things such as what you've mentioned to be considered before anything could be given serious consideration but it is something we can run with.
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#27 - 2014-09-12 08:58:53 UTC
Sigras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Sigras wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Any tools you add for small groups to hit large ones will be used by large groups much more effectivly against small groups.

tell me exactly how a bomb that does more damage as it effects more targets would be used by larger groups more effectively against small groups?

By it's very nature it would only work against bigger groups.

We can use a lot more of them.

sure you can launch 100 bombs that all do 0 damage because they dont hit enough targets to be useful

Im thinking damage = (NumberOfShipsHit / 2) ^ 3

so you're in a 50 man fleet and each of you launches one of these bombs at my 10 man fleet and vice versa

our 10 bombs hit your fleet for 15,625 damage each meaning 156,250 damage to each ship in your fleet

your 50 bombs hit my 10 man fleet for 125 damage each meaning 6,250 damage to each ship in my fleet.

Still think more = better?

Getting around these problems just takes a bit of creativity and forethought...


It means putting in overly complicated things that the larger groups will use much more effectivly.

I can get around your "fix" simply by staggering bomb runs.
Jane Shapperd
Quafe Commandos
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#28 - 2014-09-12 08:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jane Shapperd
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2

Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time

Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa

sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine


This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue.

Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death.


You'd have to consider this , what prevents the pilot who implented the effect from using an alt to fail the hack to ensure locking the effect up


As stated its a brain storming session not a full concept so there would be a lot of things such as what you've mentioned to be considered before anything could be given serious consideration but it is something we can run with.



Well its doesnt have to nodify the group who are holding the sov like the block aid units

but it can be showing as a signture that can be scanned down by probes and if it is scaned before it gets onlined it can be removed

that will hurt people who owns lots of systems alot
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2014-09-12 09:04:15 UTC
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2

Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time

Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa

sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine


This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue.

Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death.


You'd have to consider this , what prevents the pilot who implented the effect from using an alt to fail the hack to ensure locking the effect up


As stated its a brain storming session not a full concept so there would be a lot of things such as what you've mentioned to be considered before anything could be given serious consideration but it is something we can run with.



Well its doesnt have to nodify the group who are holding the sov like the block aid units

but it can be showing as a signture that can be scanned down by probes and it is scaned before it gets onlined it can be removed


I was just thinking if they implemented it after they revised corporation roles and titles and how their handled a role could exist such as security officer and only those marked as said role could make an attempt on such a device. That way if someone was using an alt to ensure its detonation they would have to gain trust to earn the title from the sov holding alliance's leadership first. it would help to make it more difficult and it would also give doubt to a person's loyalty if they did indeed fail and would serve its purpose even more with sowing deceit and mistrust among the intended targets.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2014-09-12 09:09:56 UTC
I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare.

The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave.

What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE.

If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one.
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2014-09-12 09:10:06 UTC
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:
I kinda like this idea , implanting a system wide effect like wormhole effects for 1 day or 2

Takes 2 hours to anchor( can be killed while anchoring ) and once its anchored it cant be destroyed but it will die after some time

Maybe add some extreem effects like droping shield resistance for all ships to 0% , while multiplying arrmor resist to all ships by 1.5 and vice versa

sure it will hurt both sides but then they have to adapt and use a different doctrine


This is closer to what I've got in mind. Although ideally it wouldn't be a structure that you would have to guard or defend but something you set into motion that might have to be located and disarmed within a fairly short time frame and it would have to be difficult enough for someone to risk a few billion to implement it in the attempt. The last thing we would want is a structure grind or another TIDI fleet to the rescue.

Perhaps to disable the device you'd need to complete 3-4 hacking attempts or a really difficult one and if you fail too many times it locks you out permanently and sets off the device immediately. I'm looking for a new mechanic here not a rewrite of an old one that's been beaten to death.


You'd have to consider this , what prevents the pilot who implented the effect from using an alt to fail the hack to ensure locking the effect up


As stated its a brain storming session not a full concept so there would be a lot of things such as what you've mentioned to be considered before anything could be given serious consideration but it is something we can run with.



Well its doesnt have to nodify the group who are holding the sov like the block aid units

but it can be showing as a signture that can be scanned down by probes and if it is scaned before it gets onlined it can be removed

that will hurt people who owns lots of systems alot


Also we would want it to be public and visable with some kind of notice because the idea is to enact a sense of urgency and panic to do something quickly to avoid potentially days of hardship or the loss/disabled strategically valuable target. They need to have a bat phone type response and if he doesn't answer there should be consequences. It should scale though depending on the type of attack.
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2014-09-12 09:18:20 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare.

The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave.

What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE.

If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one.


The idea is that those who go around using it on every target they can drop it on will eventually be the targets that many others will want to destroy the most.. if it was abused the abusers would make a lot of enemies and would then be the ones the majority would want to hit.

If nothing else it could mean mutual destruction which honestly I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in many cases and the truth is that many of the major blocs could care less about the little guys simply because there's nothing they can do to them at the moment other than steal a few resources from their towers and other minor things. Not to even mention that many who would likely target the larger guys will not own territory for them to attack. Most smaller groups that do own territory rent it so the point is null. The only ones large groups would use it on is other large groups in attempts to take sov and even then those their attacking could do the same in kind if pushed into it. think of it as a nuclear arms race where if any one side over used it they would assure their own demise as much as their enemies.
Jane Shapperd
Quafe Commandos
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#33 - 2014-09-12 09:22:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jane Shapperd
afkalt wrote:
I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare.

The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave.

What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE.

If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one.


maybe an effect that resticts capitals or a type of ships to fly in that system

And if that ship is log off in system it will have 50% of its status

With a combo of a constellation wide cyno jammer

this will prevent larger blocs to form up easily
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#34 - 2014-09-12 09:26:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I wonder if it would be fun to offline some of an alliance's jump bridges without them noticing right away..



that iirc is tied directly to sov. Besides killing physically the only other way to shut them down is to lose SOV. iirc it was a goonie posting on some place something along the lines of "hey, jb's aren't working, ccp break something" that was the first sign goons did not pay their bills long ago. Also a sign others, namely IT jumped on lol.

I am thinking ccp might have issues separating the jb working code from its tie ins to sov. Well that and I don't want the alliance turning them off for security reasons themselves. I'd see them shutting down themselves if not needed as much or paranoid about passwords. Which they should be....knowing a few passwords for alliance jb's I was not even in saved my ass a few times lol. Let them be paranoid, I still want my back door way in or out though they can't shut down lol.
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2014-09-12 09:36:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiera Malukker
Zan Shiro wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I wonder if it would be fun to offline some of an alliance's jump bridges without them noticing right away..



that iirc is tied directly to sov. Besides killing physically the only other way to shut them down is to lose SOV. iirc it was a goonie posting on some place something along the lines of "hey, jb's aren't working, ccp break something" that was the first sign goons did not pay their bills long ago. Also a sign others, namely IT jumped on lol.

I am thinking ccp might have issues separating the jb working code from its tie ins to sov. Well that and I don't want the alliance turning them off for security reasons themselves. I'd see them shutting down themselves if not needed as much or paranoid about passwords. Which they should be....knowing a few passwords for alliance jb's I was not even in saved my ass a few times lol. Let them be paranoid, I still want my back door way in or out though they can't shut down lol.


I wouldn't expect such an idea as system wide attacks to be implemented for at least 2+ years or more given the buckets of tears that sov owners would fill. By then towers and other mechanics they've been wanting to address should be resolved. So giving the concept consideration now would potentially allow them to consider it's implementation later.

Another great effect of such an idea is that it could be used to prevent or slow the steam rolling of stations once their destructible by the few alliances that can now afford hundreds of supers, something that ccp has stated multiple times was unintended, due to poor mechanics for moon goo and other past issues that allowed them to enrich themselves more so than anyone else.

I'm not knocking them for acquiring such assets en mass but offering an alternative to compete with them without having to bow to major blocs if you want to try your hand at taking on the sov game or in the event that you want to potentially do serious harm to their strategic assets. It over all would be a good thing and help the prevent the stagnation those in null sec now enjoy simply because of the variety of ways in which it can be implemented. Also such attacks would not directly destroy large assets such as supers or capitals as suggested by some that there should be some kind of super weapon to counter them. This concept is entirely different as it doesn't attack ships but strategic goals.

Again think small nations now who hold off larger nations with the threat of mutual destruction without the use of a large conventional military. The damage done should scale with its costs and difficulty with regards to its implementation and disarming mechanics and it should be some kind of new mechanic not a rehash of old over used and often failed ones. The focus should be on stations, system wide effects on star bases and potentially jump bridges and/or gates for a limited time anywhere from 12 hrs up to a week.

It should be as uncomfortable to deal with as a high sec war is for mining bears but for null sec pvp corps in kind. Before someone claims that's what triggered this idea its honestly not i'm an explorer by trade and wars don't affect me in the slightest and i find them as entertaining as anyone else but its a good example of the level of stress it should induce on the target sov holder especially since current war mechanics don't really impact null entities in any meaningful way so system wide attacks would help to fill that niche as well.
baltec1
Bat Country
The Initiative.
#36 - 2014-09-12 10:02:25 UTC
Kiera Malukker wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I suspect a better title would have been Asymmetric warfare.

The idea of what you're asking for is a good one, but the principle fails in eve because of the reasons Baltec gave.

What makes it work in the real world is the larger powers are unwilling/not allowed to combat it effectively. No such restriction exists in EVE.

If you can find a way to limit the ability of larger blocs to effectively deploy it, I applaud you - but I can't think of one.


The idea is that those who go around using it on every target they can drop it on will eventually be the targets that many others will want to destroy the most.. if it was abused the abusers would make a lot of enemies and would then be the ones the majority would want to hit.

If nothing else it could mean mutual destruction which honestly I don't think is necessarily a bad thing in many cases and the truth is that many of the major blocs could care less about the little guys simply because there's nothing they can do to them at the moment other than steal a few resources from their towers and other minor things. Not to even mention that many who would likely target the larger guys will not own territory for them to attack. Most smaller groups that do own territory rent it so the point is null. The only ones large groups would use it on is other large groups in attempts to take sov and even then those their attacking could do the same in kind if pushed into it. think of it as a nuclear arms race where if any one side over used it they would assure their own demise as much as their enemies.


Yea, we are already in that position. This wont hold us back from using them on small groups.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-09-12 15:34:48 UTC
Sigras wrote:
so you're in a 50 man fleet and each of you launches one of these bombs at my 10 man fleet and vice versa

our 10 bombs hit your fleet for 15,625 damage each meaning 156,250 damage to each ship in your fleet

your 50 bombs hit my 10 man fleet for 125 damage each meaning 6,250 damage to each ship in my fleet.

Still think more = better?

Getting around these problems just takes a bit of creativity and forethought...

OK, let's play.

Large group detects small fleet of carriers: Five of them. Large group gets a 50-man gang. Large group also has plenty of ISO-Boxers. The ISO-Boxed alts get into cheap frigate hulls. 50 of them. Cheap frigate hulls land on carrier group. Bombs are dropped. Bombs hit 55 targets, each dealing 20,800 damage,1,040,000 damage total to each ship. Frigates are lost, but who cares? You killed five carriers.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2014-09-12 15:57:03 UTC
Kiera Malukker wrote:
The stuff that's supposed to be for small groups to harass big guys with aka targetable structure services, siphon units etc hurt the larger entities by making them laugh too hard at best... There needs to be a way for a small group to sow terror in the minds of the larger entities and make them think oh s#$% that wasn't expected or what we needed to happen right about now.

Think the kinds of stuff terrorist do in rl and apply it to eve.... we should have strategic class tools to balance super cap fleets to sow terror in the hearts of our enemies and those we want to enact revenge upon.

How about some kind of chemical/biological,nanobot attack that cripples a station for a period of time denying access to it or even damaging certain assets like bpo me/te or destroying the quality of R64 moons with some kind of environmental attack or disabling/disrupting a jump bridge network for a period of time with some kind of gravity well that causes those using to be spewed out in random systems across a given area or even an attack on a star that makes a system extremely toxic to those attempting to use it for a period of time kinda like the negitive effects incursions have but player orcastrated such as a super nova event that the residents can stop in time if they act fast enough but if they fail will have to suffer from for say a week or so ...something along those lines should be possible and even plausible since i remember reading a while back how EVE's engine can be used to do stuff like that but that you hadn't really thought of any good things to use it for.... I'm sure there's plenty of other terror type things people could come up with that would cripple the null bears in some fashion and would be useful to small groups trying to create a beach head in null sec and having the capacity to pull off such attacks would give them a bargaining position as well kinda like north korea vs the usa by using nukes to prevent an invasion. Sure they could crush them if they wanted to but at what cost? That's the mentality i'm talking about here.

it could be balanced by making it expensive and have it scale say a disabled jump net work around 5 bill, a station attack 10-20 bill and a system wide attack 35-40 bill or have it correlate with the costs of supers at say half their general price. You could even make it difficult to pull off but extremely effective at making null groups go oh sheet is not good day today if carried out successfully just think of all the knives in the back the null bears will use on each other by employing low level corps to do their under handed business because they fear someone doing it to them first...... could be lots o fun think of the meta muhahhahhahahahahaaaa some of us just want to watch them burn is all and we should have the tools to make it happen with out bringing 2000 of our friends in on it and enacting 18hr tidi bashes. CCP is always talking about how a few individuals having an impact on the community at large and I can think of no better way to make it happen.

If you give us the tools we will set the universe on fire......

5 guys capable of "sowing terror" to a group of 5000, wonderful, so those big guys have 1000 of those same groups able to "sow terror", congratulations, you just ****** every little guy out of null AND low, by both nerfing them AND massively buffing the N+1 issue.

There is no way to restrict or make this fair, hell, as much as we want it to, there is no way to make N+1 anything BUT the easiest and BEST way to win fights, the only thing we CAN do is make it harder to mvoe that N+1 to who you want to kill, attempting to create regional warfare rather than galactic.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-09-12 16:07:34 UTC
What is it that makes WH space different to null.....?
Kiera Malukker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2014-09-12 18:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiera Malukker
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Kiera Malukker wrote:
The stuff that's supposed to be for small groups to harass big guys with aka targetable structure services, siphon units etc hurt the larger entities by making them laugh too hard at best... There needs to be a way for a small group to sow terror in the minds of the larger entities and make them think oh s#$% that wasn't expected or what we needed to happen right about now.

Think the kinds of stuff terrorist do in rl and apply it to eve.... we should have strategic class tools to balance super cap fleets to sow terror in the hearts of our enemies and those we want to enact revenge upon.

How about some kind of chemical/biological,nanobot attack that cripples a station for a period of time denying access to it or even damaging certain assets like bpo me/te or destroying the quality of R64 moons with some kind of environmental attack or disabling/disrupting a jump bridge network for a period of time with some kind of gravity well that causes those using to be spewed out in random systems across a given area or even an attack on a star that makes a system extremely toxic to those attempting to use it for a period of time kinda like the negitive effects incursions have but player orcastrated such as a super nova event that the residents can stop in time if they act fast enough but if they fail will have to suffer from for say a week or so ...something along those lines should be possible and even plausible since i remember reading a while back how EVE's engine can be used to do stuff like that but that you hadn't really thought of any good things to use it for.... I'm sure there's plenty of other terror type things people could come up with that would cripple the null bears in some fashion and would be useful to small groups trying to create a beach head in null sec and having the capacity to pull off such attacks would give them a bargaining position as well kinda like north korea vs the usa by using nukes to prevent an invasion. Sure they could crush them if they wanted to but at what cost? That's the mentality i'm talking about here.

it could be balanced by making it expensive and have it scale say a disabled jump net work around 5 bill, a station attack 10-20 bill and a system wide attack 35-40 bill or have it correlate with the costs of supers at say half their general price. You could even make it difficult to pull off but extremely effective at making null groups go oh sheet is not good day today if carried out successfully just think of all the knives in the back the null bears will use on each other by employing low level corps to do their under handed business because they fear someone doing it to them first...... could be lots o fun think of the meta muhahhahhahahahahaaaa some of us just want to watch them burn is all and we should have the tools to make it happen with out bringing 2000 of our friends in on it and enacting 18hr tidi bashes. CCP is always talking about how a few individuals having an impact on the community at large and I can think of no better way to make it happen.

If you give us the tools we will set the universe on fire......

5 guys capable of "sowing terror" to a group of 5000, wonderful, so those big guys have 1000 of those same groups able to "sow terror", congratulations, you just ****** every little guy out of null AND low, by both nerfing them AND massively buffing the N+1 issue.

There is no way to restrict or make this fair, hell, as much as we want it to, there is no way to make N+1 anything BUT the easiest and BEST way to win fights, the only thing we CAN do is make it harder to move that N+1 to who you want to kill, attempting to create regional warfare rather than galactic.


I'm not convinced that it would be the **** storm that you purpose it would be for smaller entities again the mechanic is tied to giving those without sov the opportunity to impact those with it without gathering a 5k man fleet and hundreds of ships that take months to build.

While any kind of system wide pain inducing mechanic could and would be employed by the larger sov holders to take territory again it would only encourage their foes to do the same in kind again leading to mutual destruction which again is not a necessarily a bad thing because it forces and allows entrenched lines to move.

Again most smaller entities either reside in low/high sec or if they do live in null sec pay protection money to bigger sov holders so the point is mute when it come to them harassing the small guys as the small guys are already PAYING them to live where they currently do. Also your forgetting that the attacks would come at great costs that have a 1 time benefit and would scale anywhere from 25 billion upwards of 80+ billion depending on their effect.

In this form it acts as a large isk sink for those who would want to over use them at the cost of hundreds or dozens of conventional fleets and assets. Which is more viable for a smaller group lacking numbers vs a larger group that would rather have the conventional fleet. At a minimal price tag of 25 billion your talking about the cost of 2.5 titans for 10 attacks or 800 billion for 10 high end attacks and these attacks carry the possibility that they will fail altogether if the enemy force can respond quickly enough to disarm it. Again such a mechanic would have to be given a lot of consideration and thought before implementing.

Again given this mechanic would be deployed 2+ years in the future hopefully after sov and tower mechanics would be changed it would mean that the current mechanics do not apply necessarily to this discussion.

In concept system wide and strategic asset attacks could be used as a tool to prevent the stagnation of null sec as has occurred under current and previous incarnations of sov mechanics and strategic assets because it allows for a greater range of deception and meta at the alliance level than current mechanics allow.
Previous page123Next page