These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Mines.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#61 - 2015-05-19 18:19:01 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:


We've addressed all fundamental questions, saying otherwise doesen't make it so. Since you speak for all of CCP and they have obviously given you permission to speak on their behalf, I will address these concerns that they have.

You may have addressed many of them, but you need to not only address them, but solve them in the eyes of the majority of the community. This condesending "It's all fixed as posted, so anything you ask about that has been posted is automatically wrong" won't get you very far.

Quote:

Dropping off a mine wouldent kill anything, not even a pod, although it would critically wound it, maybe. This logic is flawed but chanted as a mantra.

You've repeated yourself again, although this means nothing. Dropping a mine and warping 30 jumps away, while this still wouldent produce a kill, unless of course the pilot killed themselves on purpose by hitting every mine they came across, would render the mine inert by that time frame anyway, once again, flawed logic.

256 man fleet moving in frigates with staged mine colliers. Drop mines in densest possible pattern, drop bubbles around the gate, warp to next gate and do the same. You now have a system where only nullified stuff can enter or leave without having to go through several km of bubbled minefield, which means moving slow and careful in small stuff, or taking the time to destroy such a thing.

Quote:

My work destroyed the server lag problem. Once again, you are skipping enormous portions of the thread and lying by omission.

Distance check once per tick to every object on grid per mine.
Now, lets take a standard 150km diameter spherical grid and fill it to capacity with mines, like I suggested as a chokepoint defense. 1767.15km3. Mines can be dropped every 3km under the stuff posted, so lets use 14.14km3 as the volume of the spheres for the mines, giving each mine it's full exclusion zone to itself. Using the fairly simple cubic lattice, with a packing density of ~52%, this gives us ~65 mines on grid. Now, into this, drop a 256 person fleet, such that the total number of objects is now 321, and thus we need 321 distance checks per mine per tick. This is a non-trivial load increase if the code is not ruthlessly optimized. And this is purely based on the addition of mines to a standard grid in a fairly loose configuration, with the LARGEST feasible sphere as a realistic use case. The whole set up still costs less than a single battleship, and we all know how jealously null alliances protect those.

As an aside, worst case, using mathematical dense packing and 1.5km spheres yields 769 mines on a grid, which is still easily affordable for things like regional chokepoints between regions which are too distant to be threatened directly by capital jumping, especially if anyone in corp or alliance can tend someone else's mines.

Quote:

However, since you have spoken with CCP and they have appointed you their representative to inform me of their problems with my presentation, please let them know that a possible suggestion to solve this issue (if indeed it is one) would be to make a mechanic that renders the mines inert when the pilot leaves system, although, I doubt this would be necessary, as has been explain a half dozen times previously.

Once again, you have provided an opportunity to improve the refinement of this feature and showed that it is almost complete in its development.

Thank You.


7/10 on the sarcasm scale for the CCP crack. Even if you can't think of a way for this feature to be abused, a whole lot of other people can, and you need to be able to explain why it cannot be abused. Using the info in this thread, I have come up with a few extremely powerful defensive uses (regional chokepoints, setting up sov-less DMZ's, Salting a grid to use as a trap to open a fleet fight, etc.)

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#62 - 2015-05-19 19:07:46 UTC
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
How about mines being part of the citadel and structure defense can only be active near certain structures and deployed by the owners.


It is a constructive suggestion, however it limits mines to the already over powered (and soon to be infallible) alliances and excludes mines from use by the rest of the entire player base while giving exclusive rights to select groups of individuals.
Defeating the purpose of the entire thread.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#63 - 2015-05-20 03:09:19 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
How about mines being part of the citadel and structure defense can only be active near certain structures and deployed by the owners.


It is a constructive suggestion, however it limits mines to the already over powered (and soon to be infallible) alliances and excludes mines from use by the rest of the entire player base while giving exclusive rights to select groups of individuals.
Defeating the purpose of the entire thread.


So an interesting concept of mines as a purely defensive system defeats the purpose of the entire thread.
Alliances will soon be "infallible".
Players won't be able to launch the citadel structures that have been said can be launched for personal, corp, alliance or public use so it restricts them from most of the player base.

Hombre, I think we are playing entirely different games.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#64 - 2015-05-20 08:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Specia1 K
Okay I have read the whole thread. Here are my thoughts:

Minelaying
-should be laid by Industrial ships or transports. not stealth bombers. Engineers don't fly stealth bombers.
-minelaying has inherent risk of self-detonation, and would be skill-based risk.
-time to deploy and activate (like most other deployed units). mine-laying is a pre-planned measure and would not be done during a battle.
-once laid, the fuse is lit and the bomb will detonate if not de-activated in time.

Minesweeping
-should be able to detect mines and detonate mines using AoE, weapons, drones etc. If in proximity range, you will take damage.
Targeting will suffer due to the smaller size, but not be unrealistic (ie targeting a corpse for example)
-mines should be able to be de-activated and retrieved or refreshed, perhaps with a mini-game similar to Hacking. Incentive and method for pilfering someone elses handiwork.

Use
-requires a minimum mass level to detonate, determined by the size of mine you have stated. Small mines detonate for all, large only for large masses. Otherwise, only make one size of mine.
-detonation is immediate. Otherwise I'll just skate through in my speed-tanked ship thankyouverymuch.

Still thinking about how this would be exploited, er, used, in the game. But I like the concept.

edit: nix the 1hr timer. It should be 24hr.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#65 - 2015-05-20 13:58:51 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
We've addressed all fundamental questions, saying otherwise doesen't make it so. Since you speak for all of CCP and they have obviously given you permission to speak on their behalf, I will address these concerns that they have.

And repeatedly saying that you have addressed the concerns posted by others does not mean that you have so I guess we are even on that score.


Deep Nine wrote:
Dropping off a mine wouldent kill anything, not even a pod, although it would critically wound it, maybe. This logic is flawed but chanted as a mantra.

If one of these proposed mines is so weak that it cannot destroy something as fragile and easily destroyed as a pod then what the hell good are they? What purpose do they serve when your enemy simply flies straight through your mine field totally ignoring it while suffering an insignificant level of damage in the process?

Take these child's noise makers and pack the tightly enough together that they have a prayer of damaging something and you have just created the possibility for an incredible level of server lag.

And so we end up here.
They are to weak to be of any significance when deployed at the distances you state.
If deployed closely enough that they may be of some use then there is to much potential for server lag.
So after all your adjustments and statements to the contrary we still have a totally failed idea and I still have to say NO.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2015-05-20 14:11:33 UTC
At this point and levels of restriction, you'd be better just jetcanning bookmarks and renaming the can "WARNING: MINE!"
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#67 - 2015-05-20 15:24:08 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Okay I have read the whole thread. Here are my thoughts:

Minelaying
-should be laid by Industrial ships or transports. not stealth bombers. Engineers don't fly stealth bombers.
-minelaying has inherent risk of self-detonation, and would be skill-based risk.
-time to deploy and activate (like most other deployed units). mine-laying is a pre-planned measure and would not be done during a battle.
-once laid, the fuse is lit and the bomb will detonate if not de-activated in time.

Minesweeping
-should be able to detect mines and detonate mines using AoE, weapons, drones etc. If in proximity range, you will take damage.
Targeting will suffer due to the smaller size, but not be unrealistic (ie targeting a corpse for example)
-mines should be able to be de-activated and retrieved or refreshed, perhaps with a mini-game similar to Hacking. Incentive and method for pilfering someone elses handiwork.

Use
-requires a minimum mass level to detonate, determined by the size of mine you have stated. Small mines detonate for all, large only for large masses. Otherwise, only make one size of mine.
-detonation is immediate. Otherwise I'll just skate through in my speed-tanked ship thankyouverymuch.

Still thinking about how this would be exploited, er, used, in the game. But I like the concept.

edit: nix the 1hr timer. It should be 24hr.


Thank you for the contributions, reiterations, and suggestions.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#68 - 2015-05-20 15:27:20 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Deep Nine wrote:


We've addressed all fundamental questions, saying otherwise doesen't make it so. Since you speak for all of CCP and they have obviously given you permission to speak on their behalf, I will address these concerns that they have.

You may have addressed many of them, but you need to not only address them, but solve them in the eyes of the majority of the community. This condesending "It's all fixed as posted, so anything you ask about that has been posted is automatically wrong" won't get you very far.

Quote:

Dropping off a mine wouldent kill anything, not even a pod, although it would critically wound it, maybe. This logic is flawed but chanted as a mantra.

You've repeated yourself again, although this means nothing. Dropping a mine and warping 30 jumps away, while this still wouldent produce a kill, unless of course the pilot killed themselves on purpose by hitting every mine they came across, would render the mine inert by that time frame anyway, once again, flawed logic.

256 man fleet moving in frigates with staged mine colliers. Drop mines in densest possible pattern, drop bubbles around the gate, warp to next gate and do the same. You now have a system where only nullified stuff can enter or leave without having to go through several km of bubbled minefield, which means moving slow and careful in small stuff, or taking the time to destroy such a thing.

Quote:

My work destroyed the server lag problem. Once again, you are skipping enormous portions of the thread and lying by omission.

Distance check once per tick to every object on grid per mine.
Now, lets take a standard 150km diameter spherical grid and fill it to capacity with mines, like I suggested as a chokepoint defense. 1767.15km3. Mines can be dropped every 3km under the stuff posted, so lets use 14.14km3 as the volume of the spheres for the mines, giving each mine it's full exclusion zone to itself. Using the fairly simple cubic lattice, with a packing density of ~52%, this gives us ~65 mines on grid. Now, into this, drop a 256 person fleet, such that the total number of objects is now 321, and thus we need 321 distance checks per mine per tick. This is a non-trivial load increase if the code is not ruthlessly optimized. And this is purely based on the addition of mines to a standard grid in a fairly loose configuration, with the LARGEST feasible sphere as a realistic use case. The whole set up still costs less than a single battleship, and we all know how jealously null alliances protect those.

As an aside, worst case, using mathematical dense packing and 1.5km spheres yields 769 mines on a grid, which is still easily affordable for things like regional chokepoints between regions which are too distant to be threatened directly by capital jumping, especially if anyone in corp or alliance can tend someone else's mines.

Quote:

However, since you have spoken with CCP and they have appointed you their representative to inform me of their problems with my presentation, please let them know that a possible suggestion to solve this issue (if indeed it is one) would be to make a mechanic that renders the mines inert when the pilot leaves system, although, I doubt this would be necessary, as has been explain a half dozen times previously.

Once again, you have provided an opportunity to improve the refinement of this feature and showed that it is almost complete in its development.

Thank You.


7/10 on the sarcasm scale for the CCP crack. Even if you can't think of a way for this feature to be abused, a whole lot of other people can, and you need to be able to explain why it cannot be abused. Using the info in this thread, I have come up with a few extremely powerful defensive uses (regional chokepoints, setting up sov-less DMZ's, Salting a grid to use as a trap to open a fleet fight, etc.)


Your just repeating yourself, leaving out information we have clarified, and ignoring all the ideas already proposed.

You wont be responded to beyond this point unless you have something constructive to suggest. You're credibility in this thread is now at zero.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#69 - 2015-05-22 00:23:43 UTC
Quote:
(Updated from Original Post.)

Bringing back Mines has been spoken about but not properly discussed or proposed.

Limiting amount that can be placed, restricting security they can be placed in, setting them to become inert after a timer expires, the distance they can be placed from structures, and spacing limitations, are all possible ways of making Mines practical to use without creating server clutter and allowing abuse.

This is a refined list of parameters for the new mines based on the data collected from this thread.

Placement will require stealth bombers with a specialized launcher for mines, or possibly a new specialized mine laying class of ship. The amount that can be placed should be limited to 1 mine per placement, which can be placed via a specialized launcher with a loading cap of 3. Like some deployables, they have a placement time, which will be 15 seconds, after which they become live.

Restricted security to nullsec only and possibly low sec, but doubtful. High sec placement will be prohibited. Wormhole space will be included in placement capability.

A timer of 1 hour will be effective in the determent of their placement and then leaving system. When the timer expires the mine will be rendered inert and can be scooped up by any player. The mine can be reactivated, or the timer refreshed by the pilot who placed it, so long as they are on grid to reactivate the mine, it can be done remotely within 50k of the mine.

Cost [/u ]should be prohibitive, 2 million isk starting, or more expensive, this would deter their waste and leaving them behind en masse, while providing possible income for salvage operations that wish to retrieve inert abandoned mines. After this the price will rise per demand.

Distance will be 5k from station, 20k from gates, 3,500 meters from other deployables and other mines, 10k from POS, 2,500 meters from custom offices, And 7,500 meters from Wormholes.

Damage will be 100 for small mines, 200 for medium, and 300 for large. 5 types will be available, one for each classification of damage, and one additional type of mine for energy neutralization, for which the cap drain will vary, as well, depending on the size of the mine, my recommendation is to make a small, medium, large, and X-L, all of which should be developed based on current stats of ship classifications.

AOE of 3,000 meters with an activation range of 500 meters, or more.

[u]Hitpoints and tracking The mines should have a very low signature radius, thus be difficult to track and take an extensive amount of time, leaving the attacker vulnerable to enemies that are on grid. They should have a fair amount of HP to avoid being instantly glitterized upon firing.

These are the new specs based on all information gathered by multiple sources in this thread.


The case has ben made and both sides heard. It's ultimately up to CCP and Dev.
Silk Garrot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2015-05-22 00:44:03 UTC
+1

got anymore suggestions?
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#71 - 2015-05-22 02:37:27 UTC
Unfortunately, the argument for why mines should be brought back into the game hasn't been made. Is there a need?
They were pulled once, I don't see them coming back.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#72 - 2015-05-22 02:52:20 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
Unfortunately, the argument for why mines should be brought back into the game hasn't been made. Is there a need?
They were pulled once, I don't see them coming back.


Please clarify in which ways it hasen't been properly planned, I will find you a quote within this thoroughly documented thread to provide answers for you.
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#73 - 2015-05-22 02:57:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Specia1 K
Deep Nine wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Unfortunately, the argument for why mines should be brought back into the game hasn't been made. Is there a need?
They were pulled once, I don't see them coming back.


Please clarify in which ways it hasen't been properly planned, I will find you a quote within this thoroughly documented thread to provide answers for you.


The WHY, not the HOW.

Why should mines be brought back into the game?

You never once addressed this in your OP or subsequent re-iterations.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#74 - 2015-05-22 13:16:25 UTC
Specia1 K wrote:
The WHY, not the HOW.

I would like to know the answer to this myself.
Since the idea as stated and clarified?? in this topic makes them virtually useless my gues is that we have another of those "I want it because it would be cool" ideas.

And I ma stil waiting for an answer to the question so here it is again.
These things are worthless from a combat / defense perspective since they are so weak they will not even destroy a pod, so what do you intend them to be used for other than producing server lag?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#75 - 2015-05-22 14:57:46 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:


Your just repeating yourself, leaving out information we have clarified, and ignoring all the ideas already proposed.

You wont be responded to beyond this point unless you have something constructive to suggest. You're credibility in this thread is now at zero.


If I am leaving out information, then please, do the math with whatever numbers have been "clarified". I would love to see the hard numbers laid out.

As for repetition, this is a standard rhetorical device meant to drive a point through determined oposition which is ignoring any singular claim. I repeated myself, using several different phrasings, with various mathematical proofs based on numbers I saw in various places.

As for credibility, I have yet to dismiss a point of hand or resort to ad hominem attacks, such as flatly stating someone has 0 credibility. I also can source all of my numbers, provide the formulas I used for the math I did, and point out at least conceptual logic behind each of my points. Can you do the same?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#76 - 2015-05-22 14:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Donnachadh wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
The WHY, not the HOW.

I would like to know the answer to this myself.
Since the idea as stated and clarified?? in this topic makes them virtually useless my gues is that we have another of those "I want it because it would be cool" ideas.

And I ma stil waiting for an answer to the question so here it is again.
These things are worthless from a combat / defense perspective since they are so weak they will not even destroy a pod, so what do you intend them to be used for other than producing server lag?

The spacing he proposes makes them ideal for having a "legitimate" array on a gate to provide decloaking objects.

OP wrote:

Distance will be 5k from station, 20k from gates, 3,500 meters from other deployables and other mines, 10k from POS, 2,500 meters from custom offices, And 7,500 meters from Wormholes.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#77 - 2015-05-22 15:55:46 UTC
Grorious Reader wrote:
FireFrenzy wrote:
yeah and it has been stated many times that during the BIG fleet fights, the ones where having a wing of minelayers might actually be fun that tuts into an ungodly number of checks...

250 guys times 249 guys is 62250 checks before we even add in bubbles, drones, etc ad naseum... Or you know, the other few hondered - few thousand guys on the enemies team...

Actually you don't check every collider against every other collider. You partition the available space (the grid) and only check against objects in the relevant partition. It's highly unlikely that 500 players deploying mines would all be in the same small space. And if they are, not for long.

I'm pretty sure they do distance checks to everything on grid, as that information is freely available to the overview if you are on grid, and that grids are the partition size for eve's distance check. This jives well with server performance being degraded as the number of objects on grid rises, even before the modules start cycling to make an absolute heck out of that area of space.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#78 - 2015-05-23 01:12:41 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
The spacing he proposes makes them ideal for having a "legitimate" array on a gate to provide decloaking objects.

There is truth to this but I wonder if CCP would allow it considering they banned the dirty bubbles that were used in nul for the same purpose because they were causing server lag problems.
Deep Nine
Vigilante Carebears
#79 - 2015-05-23 02:31:02 UTC
Bump
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#80 - 2015-05-23 02:49:57 UTC
Deep Nine wrote:
Bump


You can't bump in this forum.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome