These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

War Declaration Proposal: Security Nullification Array
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#1 - 2012-02-08 16:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelduum Revaan
Preamble: This is something I came up with at the end of last year, and completed a month or so ago, but never got round to posting or making public. It is posted here for comment from the EVE community.
Full Document in PDF format: http://eve-files.com/dl/251960

War Declaration Proposal:
Security Nullification Array


As the current wardec mechanics stand, they place all of the power in the hands of the attacker who, in effect, has nothing to lose beyond their war declaration fees. This provides them no incentive to engage in combat with the defending force, resulting in asymmetrical warfare and making it difficult for third parties such as mercenaries to become involved.

This document is intended to outline a series of adjustments to the current mechanics revolving around the introduction of a “Security Nullification Array” which my research suggests would lead to more symmetrical warfare by giving the defending party the ability to end the war in the event they can raise a fleet, as well as introduce a further option for mercenaries and third parties to become involved even in the smallest conflict without the current “lag” from declaring war.

Summary:

  • Provides a focal point for combat, which can involve many parties.
  • Potential for mercenaries to be involved on both sides.
  • Adds a goal and risk to any war declarations.
  • Allows a defender with superior forces to end a conflict.
  • Eliminates ‘DecShields’ and other loopholes in the current system.
  • Introduces more potential for interactions between groups.


The Security Nullification Array


The Security Nullification Array (henceforth referred to as “SNA”) is an anchorable structure similar in function to both a Starbase Tower and a Territorial Claim Unit, which as a number of purposes:
1. Provide a “hotspot” for any combat, and become the focus of a conflict which otherwise may not have one.
2. Require the attacker to defend their assets, and introduce the potential for an attacker to ‘lose’ a conflict through inaction.
3. Ensure that attackers appropriately research their prospective targets before committing resources.
4. Be a physical manifestation of the conflict, allowing third parties to become involved immediately without the typical delay in war declaration warmup.
5. Removal of the war declaration voting used by corporations and the limit of three wars declared by a corporation, bringing them in-line with alliances and their ability to declare
as many wars as they wish to do so, immediately.


Declaring War

(See Appendix 1 - 'Declaring War' in the linked document)

Anchoring and Onlining

This structure is anchored in a 0.5-0.8 security system. This takes a relatively short time (around 5-10 minutes), either at a safespot in system or at a celestial (planet or moon), however must be anchored at least 75km from any existing object in space, and if anchored at a celestial, it causes the normal grid entry point to relocate away from the structure in the same way that currently happens when anchoring a POS.
When anchored, the module is ‘fueled’ with the appropriate starbase charters which are consumed at the rate of 1 per hour. These are placed into a “charter bay” large enough to hold only 168 charters (sufficient for 7 days), and the SNA can then be brought online, which takes a further 5-10 minutes.
Once online, the SNA projects a ‘Security Nullification Field’ which produces a POS style bubble around the structure with a 50km radius, which has a number of effects:
  1. The space inside the SNA bubble immediately becomes (in effect) null security space.
  2. No items or structures inside the bubble may be target locked from outside, and vice versa.
  3. Entering or exiting the SNA bubble causes any target locks to be immediately broken.
  4. No security status penalties, aggression flagging (beyond the normal aggression timer preventing jumping, docking, etc) or CONCORD response to combat within the SNA bubble.
  5. FoF missiles and drones will not aggress any items on the far side of the threshold.
  6. All forms of cloaking devices may be used while inside the SNA bubble, and act as normal.
  7. CONCORD will however still spawn inside the bubble to interdict and destroy anyone otherwise criminally flagged.

Declaring The War

Once online, a member of the owning corporation with the relevant roles (and as the alliance executor in the event the corporation is the member of an alliance) may manage the SNA in a way similar to a POS, and through the interface a war-target can be chosen.

Once a target is chosen, a War notification is sent to both the defending and attacking groups, stating the system name the SNA is located in (but not the specific location within the system) and outlying the 24 hour warmup period, basic mechanics and costs for the attacker, as well as starting a 24 hour countdown on the SNA, similar to existing timers on POS modules.

Hardening

With a war declaration placed, the SNA can be ‘Hardened’ by filling a separate fuel-bay with Planetary Interaction produced ‘fuels’, similar to those used by the typical POS - details on these, along with the volumes needed are left for CCP to decide on, as they would directly impact the existing POS fuel market.

The SNA can be configured to use one of hardening settings, providing four different levels of shield resistance over the default 0% up to 80%, each option using more fuel than the previous one and producing diminishing returns and requiring more frequent (and therefore dangerous) refills. At the lowest level, the SNA can be filled with a maximum of 1 week of fuel.
While there is no requirement to fill the SNA with fuel and enable this feature, in the event of attack it should provide increased survivability.

(continued...)
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#2 - 2012-02-08 16:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelduum Revaan
(continues)

Warmup Period

During the warmup period, as the SNA is located in a pocket of nullsec space, it is vulnerable to both the defending party in the war, as well as any mercenaries or similar who may be contracted, or passers by.

The SNA must therefore be defended during this period, as destruction or loss of it will cancel the warmup period and end the pending war immediately. With its location not disclosed to the public and it not showing on the overview when not on-grid, it is unlikely it would attract direct attention.

If the SNA survives the warmup period, then the war continues to ‘Live’ status.


Live War

With the war live, small (between 1M and 10M ISK) daily bills bust be paid to keep the SNA online - the first of these is due 24 hours after the war begins and can be marked to be paid automatically, the same as Sovereignty bills currently are. All other mechanics operate normally during this time, with CONCORD and/or any standings changes being disregarded for the attacker/defender wherever they are in space.


Ending A War

(See Appendix 2 - 'Ending A War' in the linked document)


Bills Unpaid, SNA Offlined or War Retracted

In the event the daily bills are unpaid, war is retracted via the Corporation Interface, the SNA is taken offline or the war is Retracted, the war immediately enters a cooldown period of one hour, otherwise similar to the existing system. The SNA is then moved from ‘active’ status to ‘online’ and provides the normal nullsec bubble. The SNA is still vulnerable during this period and has no reinforcement timers or hardening.


Defender Attacks SNA

With the war live, and the SNA ‘active’ it now benefits from a reinforcement timer (configurable by the owners) the same as a Player Owned Customs Office, and is still open to attack from anyone inside its bubble. Once the shields drop to 25% or below, the SNA enters a ~24 hour reinforcement timer where it cannot be damaged or taken offline and bills are suspended with any outstanding ones removed.

Once the timer expires, a new bill is immediately generated, and the SNA must be repaired to 50% shields before the hardening can be brought back online. However it can still be refuelled during this period, and the hardening options changed, although they will not take effect until it reached 50% shields.

The passive shield recharge rate is roughly in-line with that of a Large POS, taking many hours to passive regenerate to 50%, meaning a smallish force would be able to complete the SNA’s destruction if unopposed.

If the defender manages to continue to attack the SNA and it is destroyed, a 1 hour cooldown timer begins and any outstanding bills are cancelled.


Cooldowns and Alliance Interactions


The current system includes a 24 hour cooldown when a corporation leaves an alliance at war, which can be used to provide breathing room as a new war must be declared, giving anything between 24-72 hours of time outside the conflict.

Current mechanics require a war to have ended before a new one can be declared, which with voting periods and warmups leads to the delay and ‘safe’ time. To close this loophole, it is proposed that a war which is in the cooldown state can be ‘warmed up’ again by the same attacking party, restarting it and returning it to the normal active state once an SNA (potentially the same one) has been configured and bills paid.

The cooldown for a corporation leaving a defending alliance should remain at the current 24 hours, and wars should transfer to the alliance when a defending corporation joins it (with attackers unable to join an alliance as with the current system). The cooldown for corporations leaving of an attacker alliance should however be reduced to 1 hour, allowing them to leave the conflict without potentially extending a war in cooldown significantly.


Mutual Wars


Mutual wars are less common, but the proposed system can accommodate them.

When a war is made mutual by the defender, outstanding bills are cancelled. The mutual state can only be changed once every 24 hours, which would close the current ‘DecShield’ loophole (or otherwise make it impractical).

Similarly the SNA is no longer needed, and can be moved, removed or otherwise adjusted as required. In the event the war is made non-mutual again, the attackers are given 24 hours to place a new SNA or configure an existing one, which can be brought online immediately or the war enters the normal 1 hour cooldown. Once this is done, the defenders again receive a notification of the location of the SNA .

As with current mechanics, any mutual wars continue indefinitely until cancelled by the attacker.

(continues ...)
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#3 - 2012-02-08 16:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelduum Revaan
(... continued)

Proposed Costs


There are a number of costs and/or ISK sinks involved in declaring a war with the system proposed. Of course, all costs are variable and would be decided by CCP based on balancing concerns.


Cost of the SNA

This will be a one-time cost for a successful war, as the SNA can be re-used repackaged and sold on the market as normal. The SNA should be player constructed, using similar mineral requirements to four or five T1 battleship hulls which will allow the costs to be adjusted with the market, preventing the cost from being make irrelevant due to inflation/deflation, while providing the incentive to declare war on a target you believe you can win against.


Cost of declaring war

It is suggested that the cost to declare war be made a single cost across the board, independent of the attacker or defending being a corporation or alliance. Similarly, this should be a flat cost with no scaling despite the number of attacker/defender groups involved, and in the region of 50M to 100M ISK.


Optional cost of fuel

Fuel costs for the SNA are expected to be relatively high compared to the running of a normal POS, due to the extra defence facilities it provides against attack, effectively making it more expensive to declare war against larger groups.


Costs of SNA maintenance

Beyond the small daily costs for maintenance of the SNA, and the cost for the initial declaration of the war, the ongoing maintenance costs should also increase with the more wars declared, either on a linear or exponential scale, however it is left for CCP to decide on costs and scaling methods, which could then be adjusted in-line with inflation/deflation.


Other Uses


There are a number of other potential uses for the SNA due to its ability to project the ‘nullsec bubble’, such as scheduled PvP events between friendly parties or ‘baiting’ players into warping to a fleet within the bubble, however I leave it as an exercise for the reader to come up with the more creative ones.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#4 - 2012-02-08 16:27:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Sounds like you're trying to change high sec wars into another version of sov warfare. The best part about high sec wars is that they don't have the sov warfare bullshit. Don't ruin that.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Kelduum Revaan
The Ebon Hawk
#5 - 2012-02-08 16:41:05 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Sounds like you're trying to change high sec wars into another version of sov warfare.
Not so much Sov warfare, as something like micro-sov - the idea being that the 'attacker' has something (albeit not worth a huge amount) to lose if they fail to defend themselves, as well as allowing 'interesting' things to happen, such as Chribbas system defence last year.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#6 - 2012-02-08 16:43:38 UTC
If an attacker fails to engage their war targets, then they've wasted the war dec fee and the corp or alliance that was dec'ed can resume business as usual. I don't see why this is needed.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Kaeda Maxwell
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#7 - 2012-02-08 16:49:57 UTC
Things that promote or reward blobs are bad.

More news at nine. Roll
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2012-02-08 16:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Empire space deserves its own identity! Leave null sec mechanics in 0.0 space. What is good for 0.0 is NOT good for low sec or highsec, I just can't stress this point enough.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#9 - 2012-02-08 16:59:37 UTC
People this stupid shouldn't be running for CSM.
Xolve
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2012-02-08 17:07:04 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Besides - if you really want to protect empire citizens from griefing the most effective thing we could do if elected to the CSM is to encourage CCP to simply fix 0.0 soveriegnty so that Goons are too busy to bother with ice interdictions.



Ice Interdiction has been over for almost 2 months, whatever is occuring now is just Structure Grinding boredom relief/griefing.
Andrea Griffin
#11 - 2012-02-08 17:25:09 UTC
Yay, more structure shooting. Just what Eve needs.

CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#12 - 2012-02-09 17:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Reppyk
This is a terrible idea.

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
resulting in asymmetrical warfare
Everything in EVE is about asymmetrical warfare. EVE isn't fair. I don't see why Highsec wardecs should be an exception.

I made a lot of small scale wardecs in Empire. Me against small corporations, between 3/5 pilots. I'm sure they would love to shoot a structure for hours. Because it needs hours to shoot the EVE structure with the less EHP in the game. So, why not lowering it ? A bunch of battleships can alreadyreinforce a POCO in a few minutes, making it impossible to defend it. Where is the balance ? There is none, and your idea of adding a 80% res will certainly not help.

About the costs :

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
With the war live, small (between 1M and 10M ISK) daily bills bust be paid to keep the SNA online - the first of these is due 24 hours after the war begins and can be marked to be paid automatically, the same as Sovereignty bills currently are. All other mechanics operate normally during this time, with CONCORD and/or any standings changes being disregarded for the attacker/defender wherever they are in space.

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
It is suggested that the cost to declare war be made a single cost across the board, independent of the attacker or defending being a corporation or alliance. Similarly, this should be a flat cost with no scaling despite the number of attacker/defender groups involved, and in the region of 50M to 100M ISK.
Let's speak again about small wardecs. For one week, it should be between 57m and 170m ? (and that's not including your additional fuel ideas).
A T1 BS will make about 25m/h in a lvl4. So, you want people to take risk (by declaring war), to create content in the sandbox (pewpew !) and interaction between people (with a tachyon beam turret, well) to farm 2h or even 7h ?

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
The passive shield recharge rate is roughly in-line with that of a Large POS, taking many hours to passive regenerate to 50%, meaning a smallish force would be able to complete the SNA’s destruction if unopposed.
You really have no clue about POS warfare. Atm, I'm in a wardec, and they own a large POS. This POS has a 1800 hp/s omni tank, and there is nothing I could do to lower it. Yes, it's a very good idea... Good luck for your "smallish force", after all we can all shoot a POS/SNA for 60h+ non-stop.

I'll give you another example. I'm French, I'm playing during the EUR tz (20h EVEtime - 00h EVEtime). I wardec another French corporation. Pewpew around your SNA, let's say I lost the battle and they hit my SNA. No problem, I set correctly the timer. It will come out at ~03h00 EVE time (when every froggy is sleeping) and will have more than 50% of its HP before the next EUR tz. This is exactly like the POCOs atm, and they are invulnerable if the agressors are playing in one tz only.

About the "bubble" itself :

Kelduum Revaan wrote:
This structure is anchored in a 0.5-0.8 security system. This takes a relatively short time (around 5-10 minutes), either at a safespot in system or at a celestial (planet or moon), however must be anchored at least 75km from any existing object in space, and if anchored at a celestial, it causes the normal grid entry point to relocate away from the structure in the same way that currently happens when anchoring a POS.
When anchored, the module is ‘fueled’ with the appropriate starbase charters which are consumed at the rate of 1 per hour. These are placed into a “charter bay” large enough to hold only 168 charters (sufficient for 7 days), and the SNA can then be brought online, which takes a further 5-10 minutes.
Once online, the SNA projects a ‘Security Nullification Field’ which produces a POS style bubble around the structure with a 50km radius, which has a number of effects:
  1. The space inside the SNA bubble immediately becomes (in effect) null security space.
  2. No items or structures inside the bubble may be target locked from outside, and vice versa.
  3. Entering or exiting the SNA bubble causes any target locks to be immediately broken.
  4. No security status penalties, aggression flagging (beyond the normal aggression timer preventing jumping, docking, etc) or CONCORD response to combat within the SNA bubble.
  5. FoF missiles and drones will not aggress any items on the far side of the threshold.
  6. All forms of cloaking devices may be used while inside the SNA bubble, and act as normal.
  7. CONCORD will however still spawn inside the bubble to interdict and destroy anyone otherwise criminally flagged.
This is remaining me the battles at a POS.
So, I'm protecting the SNA, and the pilot I'm pointing will just have to move to the edge of the bubble while aligning something to gtfo ? Even with another pilot outside the "bubble", he will not be able to point him.

And that's just an example of an exploit, with no doubt we could find a lot more.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-02-09 19:21:24 UTC
its an idea in the right direction, this will stop one man corps from decing targets and sitting them in station for a week. actions should have costs and consequences.

I would suggest a few changes to prevent neutral entities from being impacted. If you just have this bubble at a celestial, then anyone could accidentally be warped into the effect and be in "sudo null space".

Perhaps the anchoring of said module creates a "dungeon" pocket with a modified warp gate ( possibly also a second in a random location in system to prevent a warp in choke point) at the location of the anchoring. when the warp gate is entered, you are given a warning of the conditions in the pocket ( or possibly a small wormhole type system is created for this event that could have the conditions chosen by the anchoring force similar to wormhole space) and in that space the true module is in existence. this gives the attacker and the defender the ability to set up the fight as they choose, close or long, possible bubbles and some null sec type assets, but no capital access.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#14 - 2012-02-09 19:23:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
its an idea in the right direction, this will stop one man corps from decing targets and sitting them in station for a week. actions should have costs and consequences.
How on Earth would a one man corp keep any worthwhile corporation in station for an entire week?

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-02-09 19:36:35 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
its an idea in the right direction, this will stop one man corps from decing targets and sitting them in station for a week. actions should have costs and consequences.
How on Earth would a one map corp keep any worthwhile corporation in station for an entire week?


because they have a 20+ man neutral repping fleet and plenty of associates ready to join at a moments notice.

Any yes, this does happen.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#16 - 2012-02-09 19:40:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
because they have a 20+ man neutral repping fleet and plenty of associates ready to join at a moments notice.
Thus making it not a 1-man operation, and this suggestion would have no impact on the outcome.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-02-09 19:45:13 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
because they have a 20+ man neutral repping fleet and plenty of associates ready to join at a moments notice.
Thus making it not a 1-man operation.



never said it was a one man operation, just a one man corp. this would give the other side something to attack and a place to even the field. to force the play and keep the fight form being totally lopsided in the favor of the wardecing group. Whats the mater, afraid of a target that can fight back? don't want any of those fish in the barrel the opportunity to turn the table?

Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#18 - 2012-02-09 19:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
never said it was a one man operation, just a one man corp. this would give the other side something to attack and a place to even the field. to force the play and keep the fight form being totally lopsided in the favor of the wardecing group. Whats the mater, afraid of a target that can fight back? don't want any of those fish in the barrel the opportunity to turn the table?
Like I said, this suggestion would have no impact on the outcome. No tables would be turned, fish will still be fish. If targets have the will to fight back, they can do it now. They don't need a structure to shoot to do it.

OP's suggestion just adds useless complexity and structure shooting to one aspect of the game that doesn't have it. I think we can all agree that complexity for the sake of complexity, and structure shooting, is not fun and therefore bad. What I will admit is a problem with war decs is the corp hopping that happens on both sides. But the OP's suggestion wouldn't change that.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#19 - 2012-02-09 20:04:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
One more thing, Draconus...

The idea that war targets can't realistically fight back against their aggressor is a myth propagated by the weak. Here's the results of a clever trap that was set earlier in the week: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15184888

If your corp and alliance mates can figure this out, why can't you? They got a juicy T3 kill out of it.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-02-10 05:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
...
123Next pageLast page