DUST Search - [Request] Installation Idea: Biomass Harvester Sphere

Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:

Jadek Menaheim wrote:

Jadu Wen wrote:

Alrighty, I can work with the shield bubble idea.

Jadek Menaheim wrote:

The sacrificial clone would be further rewarded at the end of the match if the friendly team held onto that node in which the player processes themselves to capture.

I am glad you added in that bit about the additional reward. I wonder if it should be a percentage of the biomass price of all clones collected by that harvester.

I think the system should work like this. The first sacrificial clone should take a 15% cut of all clones biomassed by the harvester (again pending that this player's team hold's the harvester at the end of the match). If another player has to harvest themselves to change ownership of the harvester, both players now share a 7.5% cut of biomass sales. Each further player sacrifice reduces the biomass sacrifice bonus by half. This system encourages more end of match offensives on collection nodes in order to keep individual player bonuses high.

This is a good Idea and supports the creativity of the player base but that fifteen percent is a lot , in comparison to how long the game plays out and how many clones have to sacrifice them selves divided by how many clones die. That would be a great deal of a bonus. If they take your ideal and put it to use they just might cut your percentages in half and increase the division , because now not only are the launch pods important , now this becomes of strategic importance , even more so because you get a cut of the gross , so it's like money in the biomass bank so to say. This is a great idea though and I hope CCP looks into this.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 16:56:00 - [1] - Quote Oh that's really cool! I like to imagine the possibilities that teams in planetary conquest might come up with for deploying harvesters when a battle commander has the ability to pick deploy spots. I do have a question. What happens when node collection areas overlap?
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 17:04:00 - [2] - Quote Alright, that makes sense.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 17:13:00 - [3] - Quote If a team did have the ability to set up their own harvesters it'd seem they would do it in spots which have a capacity to collect and could be covered by friendly snipers. You didn't really talk much to the extent of what these harvesters would like and how exposed a player would be that is hacking the point.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 17:42:00 - [4] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: In my head I was imagining a Dyson sphere with stabilizing legs to anchor it to the ground. Additionally, I was thinking that once it was either hacked or called it by a particular team, the only way to hack the sphere for the opposing side would be to harvest yourself to the sphere, terminating your clone. Suiciding yourself to make a hack?! Damn, that's wicked. I really like that idea, however I have feeling it won't go over well at all with the KDR Bros. Still, are terminal going to be exposed for snipers to pick off approaching players, regardless it the end goal is death of the clone?
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 17:55:00 - [5] - Quote Alrighty, I can work with the shield bubble idea. Jadek Menaheim wrote: The sacrificial clone would be further rewarded at the end of the match if the friendly team held onto that node in which the player processes themselves to capture. I am glad you added in that bit about the additional reward. I wonder if it should be a percentage of the biomass price of all clones collected by that harvester.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 18:12:00 - [6] - Quote Seems like that would favor clever scouts who speedily sneak up and change the alignment of the sphere last second before a match ends. Sounds fine to me.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 18:17:00 - [7] - Quote This would also be a cool look for the sphere.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 18:52:00 - [8] - Quote I've got a feeling you might be mixing up the current mechanics of how biomassing clones from PC battles works. I think it has to do with the destruction of the MCC and additional clones left over from the match. However, I think I like what your collection system might be getting at. Instead of biomass sales dictated entirely by left over clones, a new factor is biomass collected during matches through harvesters. A team my win a match however their payout is a bit lower because they did not hold the harvesters at the end of the match. On the flipside a team might lose their PC battle, but instead of taking zero isk from the battle they still come away with an decent isk return because they held key harvesters which collected a tremendous amount of biomass during a heavy battle.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 1	Posted - 2013.10.17 21:16:00 - [9] - Quote It would look something like this? [Warning: Mass Effect 3 Spoiler]
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 2	Posted - 2013.10.17 21:49:00 - [10] - Quote I got the impression that if a single player is the team's sole Dyson sacrifice that they would still receive the 15% bonus no mater how many times they entered the spheres. If that works in the context of having to share a sacrifice bonus with other team members who harvest themselves, the lowest your bonus would be is 1/16th of the 15%. Even that example of 35 clones perishing within range of the harvester would net a player about 52,000 isk if all members of team harvested themselves at one point during the game. Remember, any death, even sphere suicides add to the biomass capacity of a harvester. More deaths around them equate to a more valuable harvester at the time of match extraction.

Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 2	Posted - 2013.10.17 22:01:00 - [11] - Quote MySpaceTom wrote: Jadu Wen wrote: I got the impression that if a single player is the team's sole Dyson sacrifice that they would still receive the 15% bonus no mater how many times they entered the spheres. If that works in the context of having to share a sacrifice bonus with other team members who harvest themselves, the lowest your bonus would be is 1/16th of the 15%. Even that example of 35 clones perishing within range of the harvester would net a player about 52,000 isk if all members of team harvested themselves at one point during the game. Remember, any death, even sphere suicides add to the biomass capacity of a harvester. More deaths around them equate to a more valuable harvester at the time of match extraction. It feels like a system like that should only work in planetary conquest. Otherwise, you're turning out too much isk after a match. There would have to be some kind of change to the value of biomassed merc in public contracts and faction warfare versus PC battles. The biomass value may change depending on the combined metalevel of the suit that is harvested. That way harvester become more valuable in PC matches where players run more powerful equipment.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 03:02:00 - [12] - Quote Suicide in Public Areas....ooh we're playing with fire. I agree that a player shouldn't get warpoints for a suicide hack of a harvester. The points that they get in return come in the form of isk bonuses.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 03:43:00 - [13] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: Jadu Wen wrote: Alrighty, I can work with the shield bubble idea. Jadek Menaheim wrote: The sacrificial clone would be further rewarded at the end of the match if the friendly team held onto that node in which the player processes themselves to capture. I am glad you added in that bit about the additional reward. I wonder if it should be a percentage of the biomass price of all clones collected by that harvester. I think the system should work like this. The first sacrificial clone should take a 15% cut of all clones biomassed by the harvester (again pending that this player's team hold's the harvester at the end of the match). If another player has to harvest themselves to change ownership of the harvester, both players now share a 7.5% cut of biomass sales. Each further player sacrifice reduces the biomass sacrifice bonus by half. This system encourages more end of match offensives on collection nodes in order to keep individual player bonuses high. This is a good Idea and supports the creativity of the player base but that fifteen percent is a lot , in comparison to how long the game plays out and how many clones have to sacrifice them selves divided by how many clones die. That would be a great deal of a bonus. If they take your ideal and put it to use they just might cut your percentages in half and increase the division , because now not only are the launch pods important , now this becomes of strategic importance , even more so because you get a cut of the gross , so it's like money in the biomass bank so to say. This is a great idea though and I hope CCP looks into this. You're right on the bonus being too high. Halving the bonus does sound like a better option. In the hypothetical situation that a clone biomass was worth 160,000 isk and 200 clones died within range of a harvester you'd be looking at a 32 million isk VAT of gold. In the best case scenario that I was the only clone from my team to process a harvester hack I would walk away from the match with about 2.5 million isk at that high end 8% cut. I could certain run some nice tanks from that haul. Again, this is best case scenario with terribly high clone death count.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 13:10:00 - [14] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: You also have to take the clone limit to account. The harvester doesn't grant the limit a stay , if I'm correct , it just recycles the clones. So I can't see people running in droves to sacrifice themselves , because there is still a team limit and if you don't win the game then it doesn't matter. So in introducing this new tec , there must be lessons , so to say so that people won't misunderstand this new tec and what their goals should be in accordance. But with this being said the limit should be increased by ten to compensate for the adjustment. Ten should be enough for a whole game duration. Right, a suicide harvest hack does lower the clone counter, but that clones value is deposited into the machine. Raising the normal clone counter by a marginal amount for public and faction warfare matches is fine. An extension to the harvester idea came up that I'd like to run by everyone. What if it was possible to siphon off clone biomass into LAV/Dropship transport container modules? These would be used to refill Biomass levels in CRUs, raising clones counts by very small levels per successful transport. That system might get a little dicey if players are allowed to place harvesters next to their CRU's. Then again if the enemy sees that is what the opposing team is doing it would be in their best interest not to battle in that focused collection area, denying their potential to either earn biomass isk bonuses or clones to siphon and transport. I also like that this system works well with the one clone hack rule you established. The harvester has to be under your control in order to siphon from it. If everyone on a team spent their body to hack the harvester throughout the match, in order to transport clones, that team runs the risk of not being able to rehack the node for extraction in the final moments of the round.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 13:28:00 - [15] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: MySpaceTom wrote: So how many clones are we talking about for this siphoned transport container business? I was thinking 4 (small) and 8 (large container) clones per transport. The powergrid requirement of the large container would relegate it to being used on a logistics based tank for example. I'd actually be interested in seeing foot solider couriers added into that mix. I would be similar to the Mass Effect Multiplayer retrieval objectives. A merc picks of a vat and it highly diminishes their walking and running speed. Vehicles would most likely be needed to assist mercs in travel time. I would also argue from some type of HUD notification to identify when clone containers are on the move.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 13:37:00 - [16] - Quote MySpaceTom wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: MySpaceTom wrote: So how many clones are we talking about for this siphoned transport container business? I was thinking 4 (small) and 8 (large container) clones per transport. The powergrid requirement of the large container would relegate it to being used on a logistics based tank for example. Would you make the canisters explosive, making them more dangerous to carry? Chalk it up to some way in which the container refrigerant works. I'm not a fan of that. Also, refrigerants are usually inert gasses. Sure you might get a pressure explosion and a toxic vapor cloud, but no flame.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 13:44:00 - [17] - Quote MySpaceTom wrote: Jadu Wen wrote: MySpaceTom wrote: Jadek Menaheim wrote: MySpaceTom wrote: So how many clones are we talking about for this siphoned transport container business? I was thinking 4 (small) and 8 (large container) clones per transport. The powergrid requirement of the large container would relegate it to being used on a logistics based tank for example. Would you make the canisters explosive, making them more dangerous to carry? Chalk it up to some way in which the container refrigerant works. I'm not a fan of that. Also, refrigerants are usually inert gasses. Sure you might get a pressure explosion and a toxic vapor cloud, but no flame. I like the toxic cloud idea from an damaged canister. It's a temporary area of denial after effect. I imagine our suits would have some type of re-breather. It still seems possible with refrigerant leaks that you'd run into problems with corrosive burns. That could work for you area of denial point.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 17:25:00 - [18] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: That makes sense. I guess I glossed over the whole logic behind the extraction of harvesters when hammering out these other details. In terms of lore, the biomass could be transported instantly once collected via localized wormholes to the MCC or a space platform. Yep, I agree with Krom. So, Jadek as for this transport via wormholes, you'd definitely be destroying some of the value of the cellular matter as it undergoes decay and cancer formation with that process. I guess it could still work for recycling purposes. I would like to see the Biomass transported to the MCC in this scenario. If you lose the MCC you lose your clone recycle bonus. Ideally, a ticker at the bottom of your screen would show the value of recycled cargo building up on your MCC as the match goes on. This promotes a greater incentive to win for that bonus profit.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 17:55:00 - [19] - Quote Alright. This is shaping up Jadek. The major choice conflict is now do I risk my defense of the null canons in order to protect the clone recyclers which add to my bonus isk bank, or do I defend the null canons in order to protect my MCC and the profits on-board?
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 21:19:00 - [20] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: TL:DR Battle Paradigm Do you risk a lowered defense of the null canons in order to protect harvesters which add high potential isk cargo to your MCC, or do you defend the null canons in order to protect the MCC and the biomass profits on-board? Essentially, your system isn't changing the mechanics of an MCC destruction and the biomass that is normally collected from that downed ship. You are increasing the rewards to the victor for being able to save their MCC and the cargo it carries.

Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 21:24:00 - [21] - Quote Fair enough. In other news how would you work this system in the context of distributing Loyalty Points with harvesters in factional warfare matches?
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.18 21:56:00 - [22] - Quote Would you do anything about the suicide harvest bonus you talked about earlier?
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 04:06:00 - [23] - Quote There's where that greed angle came from. Hey, it works for me.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 17:23:00 - [24] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: This also benefits teams that become redlined, and actually encourages teams to lure opposing sides out of the redline into range of the harvester so they can continue to earn bonus money or resupply troop reserves. I could see where that suicide mechanic could work out here sometimes in favor of a team being temporarily redlined. If the assaulting force has used up all their opportunities to hack harvester, the redlined team still has some uncontested footholds on the field to resupply clone numbers again if they can mount a counter strike.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 17:32:00 - [25] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: The additional 10 clone carrying capacity could be a skill tree investment benefit. You receive +2 clones to overall capacity per level. I would bundle this in with the current mobile CRU operation. Honestly, I don't think I'd go anymore than 12 total capacity. That creates and incentive for multiple supply runs with multiple players, and having a medium container size conditions player not to wait terribly long next to a harvester in order to try an fully supply the canister. The obvious goal players will have is to fill a container to capacity. That might not always be for the best. If they die while carrying such a load it becomes a sizable loss to their team in the form of isk bonus that was lost..
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 17:45:00 - [26] - Quote Certainly, the weight of additional biomass should slow a player down. I don't think it should slow vehicles down. With vehicles I am thinking that certain classes of vehicles have a certain number of attachment slots to which the containers are affixed to while in transport. Logistics based vehicles would obviously have more open slots. Containers would be exposed for the most part and have decent level of hit points before being destroyed. With what I talked about with MySpaceTom, destroyed canisters would damage a vehicle over a period of time with corrosive based attributes. That means the more biomass that container the longer contents would leak out and corrode the vehicle's integrity. This could be a 1 to 1 sec relationship, meaning a full 12 clone can would provide a 12 second area burn. The amount of damage the corrosive burn does is up from discussion.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 19:51:00 - [27] - Quote MySpaceTom, do you know how much that damage is off hand? It seems standing on the reactor core was more damaging than standing in that goo.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 21:04:00 - [28] - Quote Jadek, that's really complicated. There would definitely need to be some kind of visual indication to let you know exactly how far away you are from the various kill zones. Maybe if the HUD temporarily displayed a virtual projection of colored concentric circles on the ground letting you know how close you are to this sphere of death.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 22:42:00 - [29] - Quote Still, you have a 'controlled' aspect of greifing with the blast and radiation system on harvesters. A friendly squad moving in to secure an enemy harvester, or a null canon objective next to a harvester by could be wiped out or crippled by the inopportune timing of a random blueberry doing a suicide hack with a very low ehp suit. At the same time, that blueberry can hack that terminal once in the match. If there are five harvesters on the battlefield, a player can only hack five times if they spread their bodies around to all five terminals. It could simply be a case of.... LLLEEEEEERRRROOOOOYYYYY JJJJEEEEENNNNKKKINNNNNSS!!!!!! Damn it Leroy, stick to the plan.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 3	Posted - 2013.10.19 22:46:00 - [30] - Quote Hey, how does a suicide hacks and their potential greifing play into a player team kill counter? That might end particularly badly in the new factional warfare if you kill a bunch of friendlies in the initial blast wave while trying to capture that harvester.

Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 4	Posted - 2013.10.19 23:11:00 - [31] - Quote There's some good points there, but I guess I'm still torn about this license to TK in this context. Anyhow, going back to Ghost's post on the radiation period, I could see it being set anywhere between 20 and 30 seconds. Catching that theorycrafting bug from Jadek, I'd like to play around with the idea of radiation buildup. This means that if an enemy player rehacks a harvester while in the radiation period, and subsequently another friendly player rehacks the harvester the gamma blast and radiation fallout damage increases exponentially. Also each hack adds an additional 5m - 10m to the radiation fallout zone and 20 to 30 seconds while the radiation damage cools down to zero. With this mechanic teams involved in a violent rally of switching control of a harvester would temporarily make a section of the map no mans land. Lore wise it makes a bit of sense that you're getting all of this radiation when fluxing around with a micro wormhole generator.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 4	Posted - 2013.10.19 23:24:00 - [32] - Quote MySpaceTom wrote: Hey are you forgetting about spawning in? The smart spawn mechanic might not sit well with players when it's sending them into irradiated regions. It wouldn't be very smart then. I guess to alleviate problems of spawning in blind to 'death zones,' a current visual status of an irradiated area should be visable from the spawn map. I do have to say that an irradiated zone would certainly affect how players choose where to place their spawn pads. The usefulness of a spawn pad becomes next to null if it is located in a death trap radiation zone. Hey, there's your fix to spawn pads being thrown down en-mass around an objective. Just place a harvester near an objective CCP.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 4	Posted - 2013.10.20 00:11:00 - [33] - Quote Daisy chained logibros. That's sight to imagine, lolz! Technically, if they get a guy attached to the harvester control panel, they don't need to keep a repair beam on him anymore. Radiation does wonders to speed up the deconstruction phase process.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 10	Posted - 2013.10.20 03:37:00 - [34] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Not to be late on the issue , but I think you gave the reason that the person survived the blast who was equipped with the transporter container as being helped by a long beam repair tool , but why not have that type of equipment added to the container as an extra incentive to carry such a heavy tool that prohibits movement. It not only transports the mass that is collected but it protects the wearer from the blast. Is that too far off ???? Bad ideal ???? Shinobi, you've got something good there. I think what should happen is the container unit has some type of integrated bubble shield that activates when the user is stationary and has a certain amount of protective charge.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 10	Posted - 2013.10.20 03:41:00 - [35] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: I'm glad to have you guys here to keep the ball rolling on expanding these ideas. It's amazingly helpful! Now you just need a Dev or CPM tag to draw some more attention to the topic. Just be careful with talking about lasers around CCP Mintchip. She can take you off on quite a tangent.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 11	Posted - 2013.10.20 13:58:00 - [36] - Quote Jadek Menaheim wrote: So exponential damage growth would looks like this for the radiation fallout. Hack 1: 30hp/s , 15m radius zone , 30 seconds Hack 2: 60hp/s , 25m radius zone , current timer + 30 seconds Hack 3: 120hp/s , 35m radius zone , - - Hack 4: 240hp/s , 45m radius zone , - - I think there has to be some type of damage dropoff as you move farther from the harvester. These radiation figures should be representative of the damage a player would take standing right next to the harvester during this radiation period. This would give daisy chained repair healers a better chance of getting a player up to the controls of a harvester while in radiation cool down. I wanted to experiment a little with how average suit meta levels affected both the size of radiation zones and how much the biomass is worth when recycled. I was thinking the meta level would act as a multiplier, where meta 1 would = 1.0x, meta 5 = 1.5, and meta 10 would = 2.0x. In the context of radiation fallout ranges, this score would impact the original radius number. The original value of Hack 1 would also be 15m, and Hack 2 would be 25m, and likewise with other values. A meta 9 suit hack would follow as 15m x 1.9 = 28.5m. If another meta 9 hacked the terminal again it would be 25m x 1.9 = 47.5m. However, as you go higher it will be possible to overcharge the range of the harvester with the radiation fallout if one's team is savvy enough to get a player that far into the radiation zone. After hack 3 with a meta 8 suit you've broken the harvester's collection range. As before there is a falloff to the level of radiation damage as you move further from the harvester. That could mean that on the very periphery of the fallout zone a player would be taking at most 1hp/s second of damage.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 11	Posted - 2013.10.20 22:43:00 - [37] - Quote Woah that last bit, so you're saying radiation only damages armor then? Not shields? That might be more unfortunate for Gallente armor tankers.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 11	Posted - 2013.10.21 02:14:00 - [38] - Quote At least for armor-centric fitting styles, you're proposing a very niche fitting role. It still useful if it gets to the point where key battle objectives lay in irradiated zones. I'm glad you offered the idea of putting these modules in the same category as armor repair modules. Double dipping into the skill tree here is a nice thing.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 12	Posted - 2013.10.21 17:26:00 - [39] - Quote Well they still have the shield buffer to protect them in small battle engagements and enough low slot potential to make use of radiation modules. The players I worry about are commandos, and Minmatar assaults who hardly have any useful low slot capabilities to remain viable in radiation zones. I guess duct tape is a poor substitute for real protection.
Jadu Wen Xer Cloud Consortium 12	Posted - 2013.10.22 01:10:00 - [40] - Quote deepfried salad gilliam wrote: Neat idea but seems like an extreme amount of coding Shouldn't be a priority till atleast all weapons are implemented Probably won't see any Dev or CPM attention at all to this topic with community attention on BPOs, core mechanics, and FanFest content.