These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proposal] Wormhole degrading bomb

Author
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#61 - 2011-12-19 15:43:43 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I really don't care about reinforcements. That isn't even a factor I'm considering.
Nope...you just want the "i win" bomb in dealing with uninvited guests and closing down wormholes.
So, we're back to these bombs being insta-win in your opinion? Well the problem is that you and Ingvar Angst now disagree, because he says that these bombs would help the invaders, and you are saying that these bombs would help the defenders against the uninvited guests.

You two disagree on who it would be beneficial for.
Ingvar Angst wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I really don't care about reinforcements. That isn't even a factor I'm considering.
This is why you fail. There's a hell of a lot more going on in the game than what you alone care about.
The re-occurrence over and over in your posts about reinforcements tell me that this is a very important issue to you. I do understand that as a part of a corp that was rescued when invaders came into your system, you'd be sensitive about anything that would disrupt your sense of security. I expect you see this proposal as an assault on the mechanics that give you that security. I can respect that motivation, but I simply disagree that it should be a determining factor. I would quote back to you your own sentiment; "there is a hell of a lot more going on in the game than what you alone care about".

From all of the resistance I've seen to this idea, I hope that everyone can just relax and rest assured that no matter how long this thread gets, this idea probably won't be something CCP will adopt. I think it is a good idea, and I'm amused by the discourse we're having, but I don't honestly expect this to come out in the next patch. So, just ease back... there's no need for people to get their blood pressure up. It is a conversation on a topic we disagree about.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#62 - 2011-12-19 16:41:50 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I really don't care about reinforcements. That isn't even a factor I'm considering.
This is why you fail. There's a hell of a lot more going on in the game than what you alone care about.
The re-occurrence over and over in your posts about reinforcements tell me that this is a very important issue to you. I do understand that as a part of a corp that was rescued when invaders came into your system, you'd be sensitive about anything that would disrupt your sense of security. I expect you see this proposal as an assault on the mechanics that give you that security. I can respect that motivation, but I simply disagree that it should be a determining factor. I would quote back to you your own sentiment; "there is a hell of a lot more going on in the game than what you alone care about".

From all of the resistance I've seen to this idea, I hope that everyone can just relax and rest assured that no matter how long this thread gets, this idea probably won't be something CCP will adopt. I think it is a good idea, and I'm amused by the discourse we're having, but I don't honestly expect this to come out in the next patch. So, just ease back... there's no need for people to get their blood pressure up. It is a conversation on a topic we disagree about.


But that's just it... no one cares that you don't care. Many do. Your bad idea would result in people losing their systems with no hopes of being able to fight back. You turn wormhole assaults into carebear adventures with minimal repercussions. I've been involved with both ends of the spectrum... system assaults and defenses. You have no clue how much of the game you'd break simply because you want a lazy way to blow up holes.

We can agree on one thing... CCP wouldn't damage their game this way, so there should be no threat of seeing something this ridiculous ever implemented.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2011-12-19 16:56:49 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Closing a WH should NOT be a trivial exercise.


It already is and always will be simply because the players will find a way to make it trivial.

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

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#64 - 2011-12-19 18:13:01 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Closing a WH should NOT be a trivial exercise.


It already is and always will be simply because the players will find a way to make it trivial.


Currently there's risk. You actually have to go through the wormhole, many times, to close it.

These bombs remove the risk by allowing somone to stay on one side only and reduce the hole to the point it's unusable. Wormholes are about the risk. We don't need crap like this making them safer.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#65 - 2011-12-19 18:20:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
You two disagree on who it would be beneficial for.



WRONG

DEAD WRONG.

Learn to think before you type.


I completely agree with Ingvar. (Even if I come across as somenoe standing on my own..its only becasue I'm not in his realm of knowledge...he's likely on a whole different level of epxertise..but what he says..makes sense...I'm sitting here appluading every time he posts as it is)

Its a two way street when it comes to WHS Defense or offense.

His explinations and arguments are in concert with mine.

Reinforcments being denied is no different than the oposistion denying access to their own hole.

For you to fail to pick up on that...is just even more evidence that you have utterly no clue what your talking about.

Again..in case your blind and not just failing to rationlize...I agree with him..completely.

He's only entertaining the idea for as long as the balance of WHS offense/defense is not disuprted in ALL areas...including large alliances/corporations..an area you refuse to factor in.

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

Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2011-12-19 18:46:21 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
You two disagree on who it would be beneficial for.



WRONG

DEAD WRONG.

Learn to think before you type.


I completely agree with Ingvar. (Even if I come across as somenoe standing on my own..its only becasue I'm not in his realm of knowledge...he's likely on a whole different level of epxertise..but what he says..makes sense...I'm sitting here appluading every time he posts as it is)

Its a two way street when it comes to WHS Defense or offense.

His explinations and arguments are in concert with mine.

Reinforcments being denied is no different than the oposistion denying access to their own hole.

For you to fail to pick up on that...is just even more evidence that you have utterly no clue what your talking about.

Again..in case your blind and not just failing to rationlize...I agree with him..completely.

He's only entertaining the idea for as long as the balance of WHS offense/defense is not disuprted in ALL areas...including large alliances/corporations..an area you refuse to factor in.


I agree with Drake on this one.

What you propose is a double edged sword and more likely to be used for WH denial than anything else.

It will make WH's nice, safe and cosy for the people already there. That is just so wrong so no way I can support this one.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#67 - 2011-12-19 22:39:01 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
You two disagree on who it would be beneficial for.
Its a two way street when it comes to WHS Defense or offense.

Reinforcments being denied is no different than the oposistion denying access to their own hole.
I agree with this, Drake. Denying reinforcements is the same as denying people access to your hole. I am totally with you. These devices are used to degrade holes without bias, they don't exclusively work for invaders, or defenders.

The issue I think that Ingvar Angst sees is that he had a very close call. His group could have been ousted from a system they were really invested in. He is imagining the Russians lobbing wormhole degrading bombs at the holes instead of having to fly their big logi-orca through them. The orca was the lynchpin to them saving their system, because once they blew that up, they could keep the holes open and get people to fly to their rescue. I do get where he's coming from.

There are so many topics I want to address, I have to revert to bullet points.

  • The Russians were on in their time zones, and were asleep enough at the wheel (literally and figuratively) so that Aquilla could bump their dreds out of the POS and blow them up. Now, if you have the time to bump an opposing fleet out of their POS, you have time to close a wormhole or explore to try and get reinforcements in. The only time the Russians were doing anything was when they were online and active, and whether or not they had bombs, that's how it was.
  • If the invaders of a hole have to use these devices, they will need to be flying a SB. SB's can be destroyed much easier than orcas or tengus. The Aquilla Incident did involve a Russian orca, but without a POS or an orca, you're not changing ships in a wormhole. This means that you're stuck in the SB.
  • These devices would cost a lot. They are a guaranteed loss. I've been saying around 20 million ISK, and I think that's a good starting point. 20 million per shot. You can either fire off 10 or 11 of these things or you can buy a Tengu hull at the same price. The cost might not matter to big alliances who replace their lost supercaps with a yawn, but very soon it will be obvious that this bomb is a convenience, not a replacement for jumping back and forth through the hole.

FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
For those who think there should be an inherent risk involved in closing wormholes: my solution is that if someone is willing to put such significant resources into mitigating a little bit of risk, they deserve the relative safety. They also deserve to be quite a bit poorer than those wormhole corps who keep their hard-earned isk and minerals and close wormholes the old-fashioned way.
This.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2011-12-19 22:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Tripe.



Do you actually put any thought into your argumetns or are you just trolling for grandstanding purposes?

You just single handedly made yourself look completely and utterly wrong and yet at the same time came up with some sort of copout to make your proposal seem... (reaching)... to have some sort of validatiy.


Who gives a flying crap if russians use SB's or not...point is...we will use whatever tool (cheap...efficient) at our means to deny or grant access to WHS.

Your bomb is niether.


Its a too easy "i win' button to close holes or deny access or "just because" excuse that can easily be sorted by any ship with a ton of armor plates for the same price.

You keep diluteing your excuses into one simple concept that you refuse to ackwnoeldge.

This is all simlpy "Because I want it and its right as such"

We dont need it or want it...thank you very much.

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

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#69 - 2011-12-19 23:33:25 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Do you actually put any thought into your argumetns or are you just trolling for grandstanding purposes?
Posting in an obscure thread on an EVE forum is hardly grandstanding. Besides, this thread has been at least 90% negative towards this idea - if I am anything it is a glutton for punishment.
Drake Draconis wrote:
...point is...we will use whatever tool (cheap...efficient) at our means to deny or grant access to WHS.

Your bomb is niether.
Neither cheap nor efficient? If that is true, why do you call it an "I win" button? Your standards may be different than mine, but if I was going to design an "I win" button, it would be effective.
Drake Draconis wrote:
This is all simlpy "Because I want it and its right as such"

We dont need it or want it...thank you very much.
Drake, you are assuming that I am pushing this idea because I want them for my own use. I don't need to use these bombs, and if I had them I would probably save them until I had a really good reason to use them. I know how to degrade wormholes, and I am perfectly happy to let the dangerous ones expire naturally. If CCP came to me and said "We have decided to make your WH bombs, but you and your alts will never be able to use them", I would still support the idea - it's not about me at all.

You can keep insulting me, and deriding me and trying to provoke me into acting like you do, but when you do that, the messages I see are: "I can't compete so I am going to try and hurt you" and "I'm not mature enough to have this discussion". You aren't hurting my feelings, you're just making yourself look bad. We can disagree with each other without being petulant.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2011-12-20 00:53:34 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake, you are assuming that I am pushing this idea because I want them for my own use. I don't need to use these bombs, and if I had them I would probably save them until I had a really good reason to use them. I know how to degrade wormholes, and I am perfectly happy to let the dangerous ones expire naturally. If CCP came to me and said "We have decided to make your WH bombs, but you and your alts will never be able to use them", I would still support the idea - it's not about me at all.

You can keep insulting me, and deriding me and trying to provoke me into acting like you do, but when you do that, the messages I see are: "I can't compete so I am going to try and hurt you" and "I'm not mature enough to have this discussion". You aren't hurting my feelings, you're just making yourself look bad. We can disagree with each other without being petulant.



Why else would you be posting in this thread pushing your idea?

This is not a discussion on wormhole mechanics...this is assembly hall..you are proposing a new tool that breaks whs mechanics to the degree of removing risk.

Yet you flounder all over hell and make it look like your right all the time while shooting yourself repeatedly in the foot until you run out of ammo ro blood...whichever comes first.

Even your so called cop out about CCP saying they would use your idea but not your alts or yourself is just flat ridiuclous in itself.

And the best part is -
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake, you are assuming that I am pushing this idea because I want them for my own use. I don't need to use these bombs, and if I had them I would probably save them until I had a really good reason to use them.


So what your saynig is...you've been waisting our time.

Fair enough...take your discussion to a more appropriate forum then..we're done here.

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

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#71 - 2011-12-20 02:11:47 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I don't need to use these bombs, and if I had them I would probably save them until I had a really good reason to use them. I know how to degrade wormholes, and I am perfectly happy to let the dangerous ones expire naturally. If CCP came to me and said "We have decided to make your WH bombs, but you and your alts will never be able to use them", I would still support the idea - it's not about me at all.
Why else would you be posting in this thread pushing your idea?
Because it is a good idea. It doesn't have to personally benefit me for me to advocate for it.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#72 - 2011-12-20 11:54:48 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I don't need to use these bombs, and if I had them I would probably save them until I had a really good reason to use them. I know how to degrade wormholes, and I am perfectly happy to let the dangerous ones expire naturally. If CCP came to me and said "We have decided to make your WH bombs, but you and your alts will never be able to use them", I would still support the idea - it's not about me at all.
Why else would you be posting in this thread pushing your idea?
Because it is a good idea. It doesn't have to personally benefit me for me to advocate for it.


I think it's been fairly well demonstrated that this is nothing resembling a good idea. It's a nerf. I makes dangerous space safer. It makes wormhole ops safer.

This is inherently a BAD thing. When you remove the risk from wormholes, you remove their heart. Even running PI should come with inherent risk. With these damnable bombs, all someone has to do is blow their static down to second crit and they're pretty well fully safe to do what they want.

You create risk-free wormhole living. As a long time wormhole resident, I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#73 - 2011-12-20 21:55:01 UTC
My current ideas on how these bombs should work:
Idea Bomb flight time should be 10 seconds.
Idea Bomb speed should be 1.5k/sec.
Idea Bomb area of effect should be 500m (radius)
Idea Bomb must be launched from a Bomb Launcher II
Idea Bomb volume = 95m3
Idea Bomb Armor HP = 240
Idea Bomb Structure HP = 50
Idea Bombs would be banned in Empire Space (like all bombs)
Idea Bomb wormhole mass multiplier = .4
Idea Bomb lifetime modifier = -7200 seconds
Idea Blueprint originals would not be available on the market
Idea Blueprint copies would spawn in random stations.

In order to fire these devices, a pilot will need to have Bomb Deployment V. The pilot would need to be in a Stealth Bomber fitted with a Bomb Launcher II. The size of these bombs (95m3) would mean that a maximum of 3 could be carried by any race's stealth bomber. The pilot would have to align to the wormhole and deploy the device between 15,499m and 14,501m for it to affect the wormhole at all. This deployment zone puts them within targeting/warp disruption range of people camping the hole. The bomb would be slow moving once fired, traveling at half the speed of current bombs. They would have no resistances to any damage type. Obviously this means that they could be shot down.

I had mentioned earlier that if the bomber had to remain on grid for the bomb to have an effect, that would add exposure. I'm not sure if this fits within the current game code, though. If there was some measure that could be put in place to make it a little riskier, I think it would be more acceptable.

I doubt that these bombs would be used with any regularity, considering their expense and risk relative to my proposed effect. It gets expensive too quickly. But, in specific circumstances, where the tactical advantage outweighed the cost, I can see them used to great effect.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#74 - 2011-12-21 13:18:42 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I doubt that these bombs would be used with any regularity, considering their expense and risk relative to my proposed effect. It gets expensive too quickly. But, in specific circumstances, where the tactical advantage outweighed the cost, I can see them used to great effect.


This is where you're wrong. Period. If such a game-breaking tool existed, it would quickly become a requirement to train for and use these tools to keep up with the tools that use them.

This breaks wormholes. It's an incredibly bad idea that benefits the richest and largest corps and alliances only... which is pretty much going against the grain of the wormhole paradigm.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#75 - 2011-12-21 15:33:38 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I doubt that these bombs would be used with any regularity, considering their expense and risk relative to my proposed effect. It gets expensive too quickly. But, in specific circumstances, where the tactical advantage outweighed the cost, I can see them used to great effect.

This is where you're wrong. Period. If such a game-breaking tool existed, it would quickly become a requirement to train for and use these tools to keep up with the tools that use them.
These bombs would not be used by most corps that want to degrade their statics. In situations where the corp felt safe they would use conventional means. These bombs would cost a lot and using 5 of them a day (at 20 mil a pop) adds up to real money in a hurry. Now, if your corp has the 3 billion a month to spend on these per w-space system you control, then kudos to you, but I think anyone who takes a sober look at it will see these as an unnecessary expense. If you don't believe me, run some calculations and tell me how to make it affordable.

Sure people will want them, and train up to use them, but unless they are in a stealth bomber, they can't. And even if they are in a stealth bomber (instead of a PvP ship), they are open to being podded. The bombs can be defeated by a single battleship with a smartbomb camping the hole. There are lots of limitations. If anything, I am starting to think that i am putting in too many concessions to try and find the middle ground.
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#76 - 2011-12-21 15:44:58 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
I doubt that these bombs would be used with any regularity, considering their expense and risk relative to my proposed effect. It gets expensive too quickly. But, in specific circumstances, where the tactical advantage outweighed the cost, I can see them used to great effect.

This is where you're wrong. Period. If such a game-breaking tool existed, it would quickly become a requirement to train for and use these tools to keep up with the tools that use them.
These bombs would not be used by most corps that want to degrade their statics. In situations where the corp felt safe they would use conventional means. These bombs would cost a lot and using 5 of them a day (at 20 mil a pop) adds up to real money in a hurry. Now, if your corp has the 3 billion a month to spend on these per w-space system you control, then kudos to you, but I think anyone who takes a sober look at it will see these as an unnecessary expense. If you don't believe me, run some calculations and tell me how to make it affordable.

Sure people will want them, and train up to use them, but unless they are in a stealth bomber, they can't. And even if they are in a stealth bomber (instead of a PvP ship), they are open to being podded. The bombs can be defeated by a single battleship with a smartbomb camping the hole. There are lots of limitations. If anything, I am starting to think that i am putting in too many concessions to try and find the middle ground.


Horse crap. If you're static is a 5 billion mass hole and you're online alone at the time the way these abombinations (c wut I did thar?) would be used to crit the static to make the hole perfectly safe for that single pilot to do whatever. It'd be worth the expense for the security to mine arkonor all day without much threat if you so chose. The rich would abuse these while the rest would still incur normal risks.

They'd also become an expected expense in wormhole ops. An invading force would budget these into the assault then use them for risk free hole control of an invaded system. The whole concept of adding safety to wormholes is detrimental to the frontier lifestyle they represent in Eve. Too much gets broken.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2011-12-21 15:48:58 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:


Horse crap.



Pretty much this

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

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#78 - 2011-12-21 16:05:10 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Horse crap. If you're static is a 5 billion mass hole and you're online alone at the time the way these abombinations (c wut I did thar?) would be used to crit the static to make the hole perfectly safe for that single pilot to do whatever. It'd be worth the expense for the security to mine arkonor all day without much threat if you so chose. The rich would abuse these while the rest would still incur normal risks.
So, you spend 100 million, to degrade your hole to 7% and then you mine Arknor until you make 100 million to replace the 100 million you just flushed down the wormhole, then after that the rest is profit?

So be it.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2011-12-21 18:01:34 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Horse crap. If you're static is a 5 billion mass hole and you're online alone at the time the way these abombinations (c wut I did thar?) would be used to crit the static to make the hole perfectly safe for that single pilot to do whatever. It'd be worth the expense for the security to mine arkonor all day without much threat if you so chose. The rich would abuse these while the rest would still incur normal risks.
So, you spend 100 million, to degrade your hole to 7% and then you mine Arknor until you make 100 million to replace the 100 million you just flushed down the wormhole, then after that the rest is profit?

So be it.


You really have no concept of mining/yield/profit output of a wormhole do you?

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

Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#80 - 2011-12-21 18:40:44 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Horse crap. If you're static is a 5 billion mass hole and you're online alone at the time the way these abombinations (c wut I did thar?) would be used to crit the static to make the hole perfectly safe for that single pilot to do whatever. It'd be worth the expense for the security to mine arkonor all day without much threat if you so chose. The rich would abuse these while the rest would still incur normal risks.
So, you spend 100 million, to degrade your hole to 7% and then you mine Arknor until you make 100 million to replace the 100 million you just flushed down the wormhole, then after that the rest is profit?

So be it.


You really have no concept of mining/yield/profit output of a wormhole do you?


I get the impression he's not ready for wormholes so he's trying to nerf wormholes down to a level of safety that won't keep him awake screaming at night.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.