|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 18:31:00 -
[1] - 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 in 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. 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.
Ouch, that's some major risk vs. reward right there. I wouldn't want to risk having to terminate a protosuit fit in order to clear the area around a harvester. However, a part of me thinks that's what it might take if you're rushing a heavy siege of that point. The big thing I am wondering is how much of a payout a heavily stocked harvester would grant.
|
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
A problem I see it stupid militia fit blueberries eating up clone reinforcements by constantly throwing themselves at the sphere. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 21:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 03:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jadek Menaheim wrote:DiGreatDestroyer wrote:MySpaceTom wrote:A problem I see it stupid militia fit blueberries eating up clone reinforcements by constantly throwing themselves at the sphere. I can alredy see the feed: "daaoaod suicides... x 50" How are we gonna prevent people from suiciding to make the thing more valuable? I think suicides shouldnt count towards the biomass rewards On the contrary, I definitely think suiciding in public areas should count toward the biomass value of the harvester. Technically, hacking the harvester is suicide, however leaving the opportunity for players to chose the location and time of death in the context of adding value to harvester only opens up new ways of thinking about the war economy and value of life in the New Eden universe. When you go into a battle you still have the ability to choose warpoint-centric options which net you additional experience in matches. On the other hand, you have the choice to boost your bank by securing control of biomass harvesters and adding to their value with your own body (Remember: this action of suicide to the harvester does not net warpoints, and in turn faster skill progression). Sometimes the goals associated with these choices overlap and sometimes they don't. The key point is the choice exists. I see novel potential here. Possibility to warp a lot of the conventions of win states we've come to understand in many first person shooters. Sure it may subvert public contracts and faction warfare making their outcomes far more volatile. However, if you are concerned with the behavior of the other players on your team, go ahead and join or start a corporation that shares your ideals. Oh God, a person would have to stay out of public matches and FW completely if they wanted to keep their KDR and win/loss record untarnished.
I've got to hand it to you though, your system really helps militia fit newberries if they want to make some fast money throwing themselves at the machines. Man, that's just too twisted for me. Scarily, I can still see the sense in it.
|
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 05:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jadek Menaheim wrote:Hack time depends on current shield and health strength at the moment a player connects with the harvester. Attaching to the harvester sphere doesn't immediately kill the sacrificing player. What does occur is the sphere deconstructs the player at a constant rate of 60 hp/sec. A player in a deconstruction phase cannot be 'killed' technically by small arms, as such fire only speeds up their deconstruction process. This includes headshots. The only way to prevent a player from successfully changing control of a harvester is to forceably dislodge their husk from the terminal via a one hit kill concussive explosion. This can be done with remote explosives, grenades, and forge guns for example.
So those lucky heavies are going to have to listen to blood curdling moans and cries as they are erased from existence. Are you purposefully wanting to make this game a torture simulator? There's another AAA game that has already got that covered. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 13:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
So how many clones are we talking about for this siphoned transport container business? |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 13:33:00 -
[7] - 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. Would you make the canisters explosive, making them more dangerous to carry? Chalk it up to some way in which the container refrigerant works. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 13:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
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. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 18:24:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jadek Menaheim wrote:Normally biomass will be transported to the MCC, however when a vehicle or foot solider is in range with the correct transport module the Harvester's protocols change and divert incomming biomass to that player. The harvester does not hold reverse biomass, so a player must wait near the harvester while soliders are dying within its range. If a vehicle or merc has to wait by the harvester while is fills up as the action is going on around, I could go for raising the amount of clones it can carry by 5 to 10. They're taking a large risk there in being stationary. It's open season for AV. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 19:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jadu Wen wrote: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.
Some maps already use damage hazards; think the green goo you can stand in or if you land on top of the research facility reactor core. Basically, just carry over those hazard damage figures to the gas cloud. |
|
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 19:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Give me some time to go check that. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 23:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 03:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jadu Wen wrote: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.
LAZoRZ!!!!
inb4 Mintchip
lol |
MySpaceTom
Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.10.20 12:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jadek Menaheim wrote:Jadu Wen wrote: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. Yeah, that could be an issue. You could draw a comparison to how friendlies killed in precision strikes count against your friendly fire count. An argument could be made that while both systems give you warning sound before their area of effect damage takes effect, harvesters are stationary objects that you approach at your own risk. You have a better sense of battlefield awareness with a harvester's when a gamma blast is likely to occur. The two main red flags are the solider approaching a terminal and the subsequent sound of a player in deconstruction phase building up to a gamma blast. That should give you enough warning if you are vigilant to get out of the blast area.
Not having those harvesters count toward your TK meter in faction warfare would have to be the case. Besides the harvester gamma blast, that cloud of radiation would be too damn ripe for players to intentionally suicide TK themselves into. Instead, deaths would simply read, clone died. You do make a good point that a player should have the awareness to recognize that approaching a harvester is dangerous business. On the same coin, if that clone dies, they're simply recycled. That's not always going to be the case with an intentional orbital death.
I've got to say that adding a new suicide greifing technique is going to be risky with overall forum disposition. On the other hand, some people are going to love that freedom of choice. |
|
|
|