14 replies to this topic

[DaDutchDude]

Hello! I like small gang warfare but I hate the state of it and would like to do things to improve this. Because of that, I've written a little proposal for what I've called "player-created incursions" that I've posted on the EVE Online forums. If you have a passion for small gang warfare, I would like you to read it and post your comments on EVE Online forums (not here), so it actually has to the potential to catch CCP's eyes instead of getting missed on an obscure forum.

NEW URL: https://forums.eveon...g=posts&t=20276
Old (read-only) URL: http://www.eveonline...hreadID=1489215

TIA!

Edited by DaDutchDude, 11 October 2011 - 03:59 PM.
Put in URL for repost on new forums

[Rynnik]

Really interesting ideas. I have seen variations of ideas like this floated around but I must say there are a few things I really like about your specific presentation of them. I will comment/bump on EVE Online forums when I get home since I can't access them from work (just EVE Search). A few questions / comments though while it is fresh in my mind: - I like the tie in to Incursion mechanics, but you didn't mention the Cynojamming effects of incursions. Should this be included in the discussion? Not only does it potentially avoid people dropping an SC on the PID, it also acts to disrupt logistics and movement. What if you took it farther as an excellent way to incorporate a player driven disruption of Jump Bridge networks? Just brain storming. - Why have the system wide beacon for the PID? Wouldn't scannable like an anom (with probes or onboard scanning) be a reasonable compromise? If it showed up like an incursion in the upper left with the effects it was causing I don't see the need to make it warpable to on the overview by default. - Why exclude cloak capable ships from counting if they are not cloaked? - Were you thinking a 1 per system limit or would you potential have a few of these at a couple midsafe's throughout a system you wanted to disrupt? Anyways, great idea and obviously CCP would have to take some time and look at balancing, but it would be a very interesting way to provide some small gang effect on Sov systems and the people holding them.

[Ksharaa]

This sums up my feelings nicely. Am I a bittervet already?

I'm ambivalent on this. I like the idea but I'm not sure I want the extremely limited resources CCP allocates to Internet Spaceships devoted to this. In an ideal world where CCP was serious about fixing bugs, banning botters, and polishing their signature game, I'd support this idea...

[Silas]

I'll ignore the mandatory and uninformed "CCP suck" comments in this thread and get to the point...

I think the idea at it's core is an interesting one. A few questions and concerns come to mind, however:

• How would the defender be able to reverse the negative effects after the PID was offlined and the gang is not to be found? Only through the "very long timeout"?
• What stops the defender from dropping a 500 man gang on your 20 to kill you and the PID?
• I think this would end up being a matter of TZ harassment as mentioned. Groups active when the defender is not would run around to every system they own and online/offline PIDs, run away and watch the emo tears.

Also (on pure principle) I think the fact that you would have to exclude cloakies reveals a major weakness in this mechanic. I would say excluding cloaked ships is fine, but excluding cloakable ships is going too far.



I think this can be modified for something more promising though...

What if the PID was launched and once anchored it created something like a mission instance that only allowed a set number of ships, possibly even limited upward in size etc.
At the mission site one could enable something like the faction warfare beacon mechanic (like the one used in the Fanfest 4v4 tournament), but a considerably longer timer would have to be necessary to allow the defender time to form up etc.
I guess this would leave the defender at an advantage due to them having access to spare ships closer to the site etc. but I think any sort of sov mechanic should somewhat leave the attacker at a disadvantage.

[DaDutchDude]

I have made some responses to questions on the thread on EVE-O. Reason I'd prefer to answer there is to keep the thread bumped and not have it drown between the dozens of (usually useless) post there. But I'll post some quick answers here as well.

Really interesting ideas. I have seen variations of ideas like this floated around but I must say there are a few things I really like about your specific presentation of them.

I will comment/bump on EVE Online forums when I get home since I can't access them from work (just EVE Search).

A few questions / comments though while it is fresh in my mind:

- I like the tie in to Incursion mechanics, but you didn't mention the Cynojamming effects of incursions. Should this be included in the discussion? Not only does it potentially avoid people dropping an SC on the PID, it also acts to disrupt logistics and movement. What if you took it farther as an excellent way to incorporate a player driven disruption of Jump Bridge networks? Just brain storming.

This mechanic is supposed to be a small gang mechanic. When you start meddling with large objectives such as disrupting cyno logistics, it suddenly becomes a much bigger strategic tool then intended. The potential for griefing an alliance with a really small gang on a strategic level becomes to big, and I don't think it would ever get in the game for simply that reason. I don't see caps being too big of an issue, because it is quite a risk to warp or cyno in a capital to a spot in space where assaulter are set up and waiting for you, because trapping the cap there and bringing in more support would be the next move. The only potential place where caps could become an issue is in cyno-jammed systems, where it would be hard to bring in enough support to deal with supercaps. However, just messing with a cyno jammed system shouldn't be easy for raiders, and just warping in a super in a cyno jammed system won't be riskless either.

- Why have the system wide beacon for the PID? Wouldn't scannable like an anom (with probes or onboard scanning) be a reasonable compromise? If it showed up like an incursion in the upper left with the effects it was causing I don't see the need to make it warpable to on the overview by default.

I want to actually promote defenders to respond. Making the PID harder to find only makes responding more complicated for them, and I don't see how this helps anybody unless you want to promote griefing instead of fighting.

- Why exclude cloak capable ships from counting if they are not cloaked?

This mechanic is intended to create fights. Although cloak-capable ships are certainly valid ships in some combat situations. the opportunity for raiders to completely avoid fighting or create really one-sided conditions are only conducive to griefing and not to getting good fights. This is why I want a meaningful part of the raider force to be committed to fighting and not just biding their time.

- Were you thinking a 1 per system limit or would you potential have a few of these at a couple midsafe's throughout a system you wanted to disrupt?

I considered using multiple and at gates like SBU's but this would only create more abilities to avoid fighting. Again, the point of this is to promote fighting, so keeping it simple and leaving it at just 1 in a space where you actually have to commit to a fight seemed like the best thing.

Anyways, great idea and obviously CCP would have to take some time and look at balancing, but it would be a very interesting way to provide some small gang effect on Sov systems and the people holding them.

Thanx

[Silas]

I basically don't post on EVE-O so I'll stay on here...

[DaDutchDude]

I'll ignore the mandatory and uninformed "CCP suck" comments in this thread and get to the point...

I think the idea at it's core is an interesting one. A few questions and concerns come to mind, however:
How would the defender be able to reverse the negative effects after the PID was offlined and the gang is not to be found? Only through the "very long timeout"?

The time out will be one way. The other way will be ratting for lower Isk bounties against relatively harder NPCs because of the negative ship effects. The more NPCs you shoot, the faster the effect goes away, however, you might have to team up to kill stuff because of your weaker tank for example.

What stops the defender from dropping a 500 man gang on your 20 to kill you and the PID?

Nothing. However, not a lot of alliances can form up a gang even half that size without calling a CTA, and by that time the process is already done and your gang has moved on. The amount of people responding whill therefor be limited by the amount of time before the PID has reached its full effect. And gangs that respond quickly are usually less coordinated / balanced, meaning a high quality raider gang will be able to kill plenty against such a blob and will accept loosing their PID for getting a good fight and a good number of kills.

I think this would end up being a matter of TZ harassment as mentioned. Groups active when the defender is not would run around to every system they own and online/offline PIDs, run away and watch the emo tears.Also (on pure principle) I think the fact that you would have to exclude cloakies reveals a major weakness in this mechanic. I would say excluding cloaked ships is fine, but excluding cloakable ships is going too far.

Well, it is a bit of a balancing act to hit the sweet spot for this mechanic.

The current mechanic for POS and Sov warfare kills small gang impromptu game play, because you can control when things happen and form up a blob if it is important enough. The mechanic I propose doesn't allow you to control when things happen, and that is what allows the small gang impromptu game play. Does it effect TZ griefing? Yes, somewhat ... however, I think it is absolutely stupid to have large pieces of 0.0 complyely empty, unused and undefended throughout one or two time zones and be perfectly safe and unaffected. I think that is wrong and this mechanic does something about it. It should promote alliances to use less space to make it more defendable, and have round the clock PVP ability, and neither is a bad thing. So yes, this will effect time zone game play, but only in a good way IMHO.

I think this can be modified for something more promising though...

What if the PID was launched and once anchored it created something like a mission instance that only allowed a set number of ships, possibly even limited upward in size etc.
At the mission site one could enable something like the faction warfare beacon mechanic (like the one used in the Fanfest 4v4 tournament), but a considerably longer timer would have to be necessary to allow the defender time to form up etc.
I guess this would leave the defender at an advantage due to them having access to spare ships closer to the site etc. but I think any sort of sov mechanic should somewhat leave the attacker at a disadvantage.

Creating a dead-space area with ship restrictions could give some interesting options, but I'm not sure how this would change things. I assume you intend for the raiding party to select the right type of module to suit their gang and ship restrictions, which would probably even give them for advantage. Sure, the defender can reship, but then he needs to have an entire gang of ships ready that fits the ship restrictions, and with ad-hoc fighting, having the right mix of people and ships is actually much harder. Maybe I misunderstand your idea though.

[Silas]

I think this can be modified for something more promising though...

What if the PID was launched and once anchored it created something like a mission instance that only allowed a set number of ships, possibly even limited upward in size etc.
At the mission site one could enable something like the faction warfare beacon mechanic (like the one used in the Fanfest 4v4 tournament), but a considerably longer timer would have to be necessary to allow the defender time to form up etc.
I guess this would leave the defender at an advantage due to them having access to spare ships closer to the site etc. but I think any sort of sov mechanic should somewhat leave the attacker at a disadvantage.

Creating a dead-space area with ship restrictions could give some interesting options, but I'm not sure how this would change things. I assume you intend for the raiding party to select the right type of module to suit their gang and ship restrictions, which would probably even give them for advantage. Sure, the defender can reship, but then he needs to have an entire gang of ships ready that fits the ship restrictions, and with ad-hoc fighting, having the right mix of people and ships is actually much harder. Maybe I misunderstand your idea though.

I wasn't really thinking of Assault Frigs only etc. I was more thinking sub-BS, sub-BC etc. to avoid your cruiser gang to have to fight off 10 Machs with Scimitars (just an example). No idea if it would work and you might end up with people bringing a sub-Cruiser one and a gang of 15 Dramiels... I just like the idea of a gang size (and possibly type) restriction of some sort.

I also think that as soon as a defender show up within a certain range from the PID it should stop onlining or anchoring. Could be a good way of stopping the attackers from sitting cloaked on grid as it would force them to decloak and force the defender off the field. It might just be that I had so much fun with the Fanfest 4v4 mechanic that I'd like to see that in game. There may very well be better ways of encouraging small gang fights than the "deadspace" approach.

Like some of the others I'm not too keen on the negative ship effects either. Not sure why... I know incursions have them.

[Maudite 9]

Anything to get them to "come out and play" is worth considering, and your idea looks quite good. What's the incentive for the sov people, though? And I don't mean incentive to come out and fight if this is implemented....I mean incentive for getting on board with the concept in the first place. As your proposal is currently written, this is a negative for the sov corps and just creates more work/hassle for them (as they would see it). Not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps a stumbling block to getting your PIDs in the game. Is there a bone you can throw to them? Cheers, Maudite

[DaDutchDude]

Creating a dead-space area with ship restrictions could give some interesting options, but I'm not sure how this would change things. I assume you intend for the raiding party to select the right type of module to suit their gang and ship restrictions, which would probably even give them for advantage. Sure, the defender can reship, but then he needs to have an entire gang of ships ready that fits the ship restrictions, and with ad-hoc fighting, having the right mix of people and ships is actually much harder. Maybe I misunderstand your idea though.

I wasn't really thinking of Assault Frigs only etc. I was more thinking sub-BS, sub-BC etc. to avoid your cruiser gang to have to fight off 10 Machs with Scimitars (just an example). No idea if it would work and you might end up with people bringing a sub-Cruiser one and a gang of 15 Dramiels... I just like the idea of a gang size (and possibly type) restriction of some sort.

I'm not against posing some sort of ship restrictions, but I'm not sure it will always lead to better fights. I definitely think it might be a cool sub-feature to have different types of PID that spawn different dead-space pockets with different ship-type restrictions, and size / price / timers / effect scaled to match that.

I also think that as soon as a defender show up within a certain range from the PID it should stop onlining or anchoring. Could be a good way of stopping the attackers from sitting cloaked on grid as it would force them to decloak and force the defender off the field. It might just be that I had so much fun with the Fanfest 4v4 mechanic that I'd like to see that in game. There may very well be better ways of encouraging small gang fights than the "deadspace" approach.

The mechanic as currently proposed only counts ships without cloak and within a certain distance towards the PID effect. As soon as they leave the PID, the build-up of the effect stops. This should prevent people from bringing only ships that cloak. I actually like the idea of the effect build-up stopping as defenders are on grid as well. It creates a bit of a 'capture the flag' effect that would stimulate actual fighting over avoidance tactics.

Like some of the others I'm not too keen on the negative ship effects either. Not sure why... I know incursions have them.

The negative ship effect is important because it makes the PID meaningful. Without it, people can just wait in station / POS while the raiders are in system and wait them out, and have little negative effect after they leave. Meanwhile, the negative effect impacts all player ships equally, so that fights in the system between raider and defender aren't impacted that much, but the defenders will have greater trouble with rats that won't be affected.

If you have a different idea of how to make a meaningful and lasting effect on the defenders that choose not to defend, I'd love to hear it.

[DaDutchDude]

Anything to get them to "come out and play" is worth considering, and your idea looks quite good. What's the incentive for the sov people, though? And I don't mean incentive to come out and fight if this is implemented....I mean incentive for getting on board with the concept in the first place.

As your proposal is currently written, this is a negative for the sov corps and just creates more work/hassle for them (as they would see it). Not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps a stumbling block to getting your PIDs in the game. Is there a bone you can throw to them?

Cheers,
Maudite

I think this idea will be opposed by people living in 0.0 who only want
- no PVP: get out of 0.0, it's supposed to be dangerous
- consensual PVP: this is EVE, not another MMO with PVP flags
- CTA blobs: there's plenty of this already

Unfortunately, I don't have much to offer for these people. How could I get people to PVP if they don't want to PVP, only want to PVP when they know they will win or when their losses are fully funded by their alliance, making PVP a lot less meaningful? If you have an idea how to reward these people to the point where they actually take a risk without creating another Isk faucet into this game, let me know. Agony has the PVP university amongst other reasons to promote people to actually enjoy the PVP side of EVE, but there is only so much you can do. You can lead a horse to water, the horse will still need to drink while accepting there are crocodiles in that water. If there isn't fun in that risk, there's no PVP feature that will ever be fun for them.

Any player who is interested in small gang PVP should however be excited. If you aren't a sov holder, you can go to your competitors sov and try to get a fight there. If you are a sov holder, you can form up a defense gang and as soon as you get reports of a player incursion in your space, race your gang there and get a fight. No longer do you have to spend hours and hours roaming and not finding anything to fight, with the only PVP being smack in local. The time spent actually fighting gets increased, and that should be the reward, no matter if you are sov holder or not.

[Maudite 9]

I posted on the EO forum to help give it a bump. I like the PID proposal and I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, but I still wonder if CCP would be willing to chance upsetting a lot of people with it. Of course, the proper balance and spin could go a long way. Cheers, Maudite

[DaDutchDude]

Bumpedi-bump! At the request of a corp mate, I reposted this idea on the new forums to make sure it can get the attention and discussion it deserves. New link: https://forums.eveon...g=posts&t=20276

[Spinward]

I like the idea D3. I've read your posts and am throwing down some random ideas but I haven't thought it through as carefully as you have. Did you consider having the PID shut down nearby gates? Not the immediate system's gates because that could shut down a response from the defenders but perhaps a high traffic gate nearby or gates leading into the contellation. The only reason I mention it is that shutting down traffic could really spur a response fleet. Perhaps it could take effect if the defenders haven't won within 1 hour. I liked Silas' idea of an instance (deadspace pocket or wormhole) that could limit tonnage. I was thinking that the PID wouldn't activate until the raiding fleet was inside and the entrance would display the time, number of ships and tonnage limit. Then the defending fleet would be able to enter with that tonnage plus 10%. If the defenders win, they could deactivate the PID from inside. The instance idea gives the raiders a big advantage that's why I suggested that the defenders could bring a little something extra. Both raiders and defenders would be able to bring their best fleet for a given tonnage. The attacker would have the advantage of preparation and the defender would have some extra firepower. I think you've thought this out pretty well. Hopefully it will get some support in the CSM.

[Spinward]

Without an active account, I wasn't able to comment on Eve-O