These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Proposal] Wormhole degrading bomb

Author
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2011-12-05 22:14:06 UTC
I propose that a new type of bomb be created whose sole purpose is to destabilize wormholes.

The bombs would be fired just like existing bombs. They would have no effect on anything that is not a wormhole. They would either:
Idea Remove a fixed amount of mass from the wormhole's max mass.
Idea Remove a variable amount of mass from the wormhole's max mass.
Idea Reduce the wormhole's mass by a percentage of it's current mass allowance (not the maximum). Half-life decay.

Like all bombs, these would have enough volume to prohibit carrying too many (75m3). Like all bombs, they would be slow loading (135-160 secs depending on the launcher).

To make them challenging to deploy, the bombs could have a much smaller area of effect (perhaps only 1k instead of 15k). This would mean that you would have to be spot on with your accuracy, or risk wasting the bomb.

To raise the bar on who can fire them, these bombs could require a Bomb Launcher II (i.e. Bomb Deployment V, a 4x skill).

To limit overproduction, the bill of materials could be balanced in a way to make them cost prohibitive for generic circumstances. Blueprint originals may not be available, or may exist in very low numbers.

Other possible restrictions could be to confine their effectiveness only to the named side of the wormhole and say that it does nothing if fired at a K162. Or, perhaps there could be 2 different kinds of bombs; one that only affects K162's, and another that only affect named sides, which means that you would have to stock both types.

If implemented, I recognize that this proposal would greatly change the dynamic of w-space. I am dubious that this idea will get much traction at all, but I thought that it would have the best chance if it was introduced along with a buffet of ways to restrain it.

I welcome your feedback.
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2011-12-05 22:36:18 UTC
Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass.

 Though All Men Do Despise Us

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-12-05 22:50:55 UTC
Krios Ahzek wrote:
Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass.


Or a Battleship with a ton of armor platting.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2011-12-06 00:07:28 UTC
nah that's lame
what would be cool is a special bomb that popped out on the other side of the wormhole
i mean it'd be stupid as hell
but cool
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2011-12-06 15:57:14 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Krios Ahzek wrote:
Use an heavy interdictor if you want to close a wormhole. You can basically press a button and gain/lose a large amount of mass.


Or a Battleship with a ton of armor platting.
True, but there is an upper limit to the battleship (even with afterburners) option. If this bomb took away half of a wormhole's mass that could easily be billions of kg (an unfitted orca is 250 million kg). If it was a fixed or variable amount, it could conceivably replace several round trips with a single shot.

The exact amount of mass 'damage' inflicted is still up in the air; I don't know what would be fair, but the harder these are to make and use, the more 'damage' they should do to the wh.

You, know there's always the possibility to make another bomb that can extend the life of a wormhole, rejuvenating it's age and mass allowance.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#6 - 2011-12-06 16:58:42 UTC

I have a serious question:

Why should there exist a mechanic to trivially close WH's?

I really think there should be significant risk involved in closing a WH. Sending through a large BS or HIC at least has some risk, where it might get stuck on the wrong side, might get surprise attacked, etc. Creating a SB bomb to close a WH from complete safety is just unacceptable!!

IMO, for most WH's, the game mechanics should highly encourage lots of BS or the use of capital ships to close a WH. It should not be something trivially done from the safety of a cloaking SB!!!!



Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2011-12-06 17:07:58 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I have a serious question:

Why should there exist a mechanic to trivially close WH's?

I really think there should be significant risk involved in closing a WH. Sending through a large BS or HIC at least has some risk, where it might get stuck on the wrong side, might get surprise attacked, etc. Creating a SB bomb to close a WH from complete safety is just unacceptable!!

IMO, for most WH's, the game mechanics should highly encourage lots of BS or the use of capital ships to close a WH. It should not be something trivially done from the safety of a cloaking SB!!!!





This to be quite honest.

Course no WHS spacer worth his salt wouldn't miss "counting" and "calculating" mass on a WH when it comes to these things.

A "bomb" would take the risk....and the reward....away from such an hazardous environment as WHS.

The only bomb ill throw....is a shrapnel bomb. Twisted

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-12-06 20:02:54 UTC
WH dwellers already have WH crashing down to a science. 4 ships total with 1 jump and back for each and the WH is gone. This is the case with most WH's. Introducing this mechanic would just make WH life that much easier and lazy. I am not entirely opposed to it though. I have always thought that a gun of some kind that could fire a super dense mass round into a WH would be cool to collapse them. It even makes logical sense that this kind of tech would be developed. It would just make WH life a bit too easy.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

Malkev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#9 - 2011-12-06 21:32:29 UTC
100% do not support.

You want to collapse the hole, push ships through it.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#10 - 2011-12-06 22:02:58 UTC
I agree with the sentiment that CCP should not introduce a device that auto kills wormholes. What I am proposing is much more limited. Remember, these devices would inflict any amount of mass 'damage' to the hole that CCP would deem appropriate. They could be hard to use, require specialized skills and equipment, take up a lot of cargo space and be expensive to build. They aren't system-wide smartbombs that eradicate all wormholes every time they cycle.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you would not object if there was a WH-bomb that only took away a single kg of mass from a wormhole and cost twenty million ISK to buy.

If you don't object to that, then we're not talking about a principle, we're negotiating a price.

As it stands now, WH settlers know how to collapse their wormholes. From time to time miscalculations are made, but for the vast majority of cases, closing up a hole is done with simple math and good communication. It doesn't take long, and the risk isn't that severe. Closing a wormhole is an inconvenience more than it is a risk in 95% of all cases.

This is not just for carebearing. Think about the offensive uses of these bombs. Lure a large fleet into a WH and then rip it wide open so they can't all get back. Maybe track a mining expedition going into a wh and close off their exit. Come on, the idea of trapping people where they can't get out of has to appeal to some of you.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#11 - 2011-12-07 10:31:47 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I have a serious question:

Why should there exist a mechanic to trivially close WH's?

I really think there should be significant risk involved in closing a WH. Sending through a large BS or HIC at least has some risk, where it might get stuck on the wrong side, might get surprise attacked, etc. Creating a SB bomb to close a WH from complete safety is just unacceptable!!

IMO, for most WH's, the game mechanics should highly encourage lots of BS or the use of capital ships to close a WH. It should not be something trivially done from the safety of a cloaking SB!!!!





This

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#12 - 2011-12-07 13:53:43 UTC
NO.

for the simple reason that closing wormholes involves having ships out in space which can be attacked. If you replace this with "wh bombahs" it will reduce the amount of conflict in W-space which would suck.

So like the other guys said. push ships through until it closes plx.


D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#13 - 2011-12-07 15:59:04 UTC
Has anyone had a fight with people actively trying to close a wormhole, or been attacked while trying to close one?
Malkev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#14 - 2011-12-07 19:40:30 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Has anyone had a fight with people actively trying to close a wormhole, or been attacked while trying to close one?

Yes, to both.

D'Tell Annoh wrote:
They could be hard to use, require specialized skills and equipment, take up a lot of cargo space and be expensive to build.

So why would people use them instead of pushing ships through?

Your proposal removes all risk, both from being stranded and from being attacked, from collapsing.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#15 - 2011-12-08 05:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Tell Annoh
Malkev wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
They could be hard to use, require specialized skills and equipment, take up a lot of cargo space and be expensive to build.
So why would people use them instead of pushing ships through?

Your proposal removes all risk, both from being stranded and from being attacked, from collapsing.
People would make the calculation and weigh the cost versus the benefit. They get to make the decision.

It does not remove all risk.

Why should ships be the only way to close a wormhole?
Malkev
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#16 - 2011-12-08 16:46:21 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
It does not remove all risk.

It does. A pack of these could insta pop any hole they wanted to.

Align WH with celestial, approach, drop bomb, warp off: no risk.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#17 - 2011-12-08 17:44:25 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Why should ships be the only way to close a wormhole?


The wormhole collapses due to mass being transferred through it. You're asking for a bomb that would close a wormhole without pushing mass through it.

The only way I can see this being even remotely balanced is by making the bombs so costly to produce that it would cost hundreds of millions to close the smallest wormholes.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#18 - 2011-12-09 00:40:52 UTC
Malkev wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
It does not remove all risk.
It does. A pack of these could insta pop any hole they wanted to.
It is very difficult to know where to begin here. First off, I suggested a number of ways that these bombs could work, one of which was a half life method that would remove a fraction of the current total mass and therefore could never actually close it. If these bombs are expensive, then the diminishing return would mean that people would likely just use them to get a head start on closing a hole. This directly addresses your objection. Secondly, a pack of orcas can destroy a hole in the time it takes for the session change timer to run down. Warp them through, and you'll be able to warp back before your cloak wears off. Less than a minute, closed hole, guaranteed. Is this objectionable?

I can only guess the scenario you imagine is of someone dropping combat scanner probes the second local lights up, locating the wormhole and warping to it, then destroying an orca or two before their session timers wind down and they jump back through the hole?

This does not insta pop wormholes.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Why should ships be the only way to close a wormhole?
The wormhole collapses due to mass being transferred through it. You're asking for a bomb that would close a wormhole without pushing mass through it.
The wormholes that people "travel" through are really just colorful facades put over the exact same code that governs stargates. The thing that closes wormholes is a variable in a CCP database on a server in London. The reason why mass and time are currently the only ways to close a wormhole is because those are the only two things that affect that particular variable.

Now, as a practical matter, I do agree with you. Firing a bomb of any existing type at a wormhole will have no effect, because as you point out, these methods do not degrade wormholes. However, CCP can create items that would affect them. That is what I am proposing; a new way to affect these variables.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#19 - 2011-12-09 04:28:45 UTC

The only way I could get behind this is if it randomized the collapse of a WH to the extent that after one of the bombs hits it, you have no indication whatsoever on how much mass it takes to close the WH. It could be a frigate, it could be an orca... and anyone using that WH does so at severe peril of it being a one-way trip.

Personally, I think that the there should be some more ambiguity in WH mechanics, so closing them is a bit more risky....

Closing a WH should NOT be a trivial exercise.
Mike C
Perkone
Caldari State
#20 - 2011-12-11 09:24:59 UTC
So you want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes? No.
123Next pageLast page