|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Axikal Fiervind
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 21:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Some friendly rebuttals from I:
Veigar Mordekaiser wrote: #1 Boarding a ship in EVE would require one or both of two different defense mechanisms.
A) Contract another set of mercs to defend your ship. Issues: A1) As the universe of New Eden is immense, it could take a very, very long time for anyone to come to your aid, and you have absolutely -no- way of defending yourself against an attack from inside your own ship.
B) Set up defense tech (ie. lasors, rockets, auto-turrets) inside your ship. Issues: B1) "Oh look an auto turret! Hey Bob, you're a heavy, go tank it while I hack it so it will shoot that rocket launcher!" B2) Having rockets or lasers being fired inside your own ship, would be... rather detrimental to your ship's structure. B3) AI vs Humans, who do you think wins? Unless you make the AI practically god mode/aim bot (anyone played training in Black Ops on the hardest difficulty? LMAO at the kill cams).
I think there'd be something along the lines of AI controlled items that have varying degrees of effectiveness. Turrets and Anti-Personnel mounts could be set to a difficulty that challenges while not OPs over the mercs. Think Hardened BOT difficulty on BlOps. It could also be implemented much like in the upcoming Ratchet & Clank game where EvE players can fit their ships with differing items on a set map.
Quote:#2 Boarding ships in EVE, would require creating a map for the entire interior of each ship. Personally, as amazing as CCP is, I don't think they will ever design a map for each Titan, each Dreadnaught, and so on and so forth. Some of the ships in EVE are MASSIVE, they would be much larger than the current maps that we have on the X/Y axis, and they are also much taller on the Z axis, requiring multiple stories. Such an endeavor would require MASSIVE amounts of data storage. I disagree. They could make a map for each type of ship, not each individual's ship. OR, what would make a decent implementation would be to give the owner of the ship different interior "layouts" letting them choose from different maps to resemble the inside of their ship based on class and size. This would add to the effectiveness of the aformentioned defences as well as provide more map options on Dust.
Quote:#3 Making Dust mercs able to board ships in EVE, would make them FAR to valuable an asset, it would be simply impossible to do anything without having tons of mercs at your disposal. It would create an imbalance between the games, so that Dust would have a dominating effect on EVE, while EVE would have a much less harmful effect on Dust. The games are meant to have equal influence on each other. What I mean is, I don't think a Titan, or even a small frigate, will be able to board your dropsuit. Again, disagreed. Mercs don't HAVE to accept a contract so that makes them an unreliable resource to pool money into as it is. It also creates a Cost/Risk factor that can either make or break a player if not done right or if the mercs approached are unscrupulous. Let's face it, we're playing a space sim. I think this would add to the tension in the game, though I understand what you're getting at. It could become too OP if done incorrectly and damage players accounts on EvE.
But if they were to implement a strong defence deterrent, and if you were able to pool enough money into defences, you could deter any mercs. As with any in-game system there is opportunity to spam and over-run, but that's part of the game.
(cont.) |
Axikal Fiervind
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 21:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
(cont.)
Quote:#4 In order to defend against an attack, you may decide to preemptively hire some mercenaries to defend you. Those mercenaries could easily take your contract and receive your payment, only to board your ship and hold it for ransom. So? They ARE mercs. This, again, leads into the cost/risk factor I mentioned before. Do you invest in mercs who may potentially save you/turn coat and take over? Or go it alone?
Quote:Another issue would be if you were boarded, prompting you to create a defense contract so some mercs can come save you, only to find out that either A) the defending mercs are actually working with the attacking mercs, and they hold you for ransom anyway; or B) the defending mercs come, kill the attacking mercs, salvage their remains, and hold you for ransom. See above response.
Quote:#5 Hiring mercenaries to attack a ship, would cost significantly more than simply blowing the ship up in most scenarios. Perhaps it would be effective for small frigates or mining ships, but in PvP situations such as pirating or gate blocking, it wouldn't make sense. How so? Perhaps CCP will balance out the cost of hiring a team of mercs based on fitting and size? Or maybe use an alternative "currency" that translates into ISK? Perhaps it will be solely based on how much is being offered to the team and if they'll accept rather than a solid figure?
(cont.) |
Axikal Fiervind
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 21:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
(cont.)
Quote:#6 This would not be viable in fleet fights, if the goal was to capture something on the ship in question. As soon as you boarded your target, their team would target them and melt them immediately, to prevent you from taking whatever valuables you happen to be after. So the match would really never even happen. Then all the mercs would die, losing stock. I think what would be a nice idea is giving mercs the ability to sneak onto ships and try to avoid detection. Doing so would net them the ability to complete whatever objective they were given in the contract they chose, or what they decide to do with the ship if they choose to divert from the contract. There could also be a system that marks each merc for treacherous actions. Like a "karma" system that shows off whom is more likely to turn coat. This could be counter-intuitive to the concept of being a merc, but could also serve as a "reputation system" like on XBOX Live.
Quote:If we get to board NPC ships for story line missions, cool, I'll take down Sansha from the inside. Fighting AI in PvE makes sense, but having AI as a defense mechanism for PvP encounters would be simply... stupid. It would be more like PvEVE-ship, as the EVE player would really have no effect on the AI defending him, other than which weapons he chose to give it. Another option is to allow the EvE player to control different mounted weapons remotely. How the hell that would work is beyond me, but it sounds like fun. Especially if the player has two monitors. Just imagine that for a moment and sigh.
These are just some ideas that I do think would balance it out. |
Axikal Fiervind
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 21:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Patches The Hyena wrote:How many of my fellow Dust players supporting the boarding idea have played EVE? And how many of those have actually been in 0.0 wars involving fleet engagements and station/POS takedowns?
Having done all of the above I want no part in ship boarding. For one, many fleets engagements involve one fleet rolling over another. Like the day Goonswarm jumped more carriers then I had time to count on top of the fleet I was apart of. There was no chance for boarding, we were wiped the **** out before we could count the amount of carriers dumped in our lap!
The rest of the engagements took forever. Lots of jumping in and out, managing range, blah blah blah. Fleet commander calls a Target we melt em in a few seconds all the while hoping we aren't the target the opposition fleet commander calls for his guys.
If you are a Duster who has signed a contract to be a boarding party you're gonna just sit and wait, and wait and wait ad naseum, then find out the ship carrying you just got called as a target because the opposition is pulling in their big ships and they want possible boarding attempts prevented. So good job wasting your time.
It's a great idea that sounds fun, but it won't work in application without seriously reworking fleet warfare mechanics. As it is now you'd wind up with a bunch of mercs sitting around waiting to do something just to be prevented from seeing action by an intelligent fleet commander.
Now a place where boarding will work and should be implemented is stations and POS. Last time I was in a fleet attacking either of those two it was incredibly dull after the defending fleet was dealt with. The process of taking out individual parts of the station and blah blah could be circumvented and stream lined. Instead of forcing EVE pilots to pound away on immensely high HP station pieces just have them take anti ship defenses then send in the Dusters to capture a station from the inside. It gives the Dusters something fun to do and eliminates a tedious part of EVE warfare, a win win in my book. This is an awesome response. I agree with you entirely. I've not played EVE, but what you said makes a lot of sense. |
Axikal Fiervind
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 22:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Veigar Mordekaiser wrote:Giving mercs the ability to "sneak" onto a ship would only strengthen their value, another argument against this. Sure you could have an AI defense system, but unless it is a computer controlled god mode, the players will always outsmart it. It would be necessary to have mercenaries defending you, as such their value would skyrocket and they would become a necessity outside all "safe zones" ie. HighSec. The possibility of remote controlling security systems is also a suggestion. I'm no professional programmer (only done indie amateur stuff with ZZT), but if it was possible to program in a remote control system to offset AI then that would be good. Another option would be alarm systems; alarms would function as a counter-stealth method and range from simple designs like pressure plates to laser systems. Hacking them would require special skills and not every Duster could hack at once like we do on planetary mounteds.
Also, I think it shouldn't be possible to hack security systems like mounted items for balancing reasons. Again, if you notch up the security to (the example I gave was "Hardened Bot difficulty") a high enough level without compromising difficulty or making it OP, then everything should work out fine.
Quote:A karma system will already be in place, known as standing. If you wrong someone, they will lower your standing with them, which will in turn lower your overall effective standing. Awesome. That's precisely what I think will help EVE players choose from mercs. But I still believe that giving Dusties more options than just being battlefield troops is a necessity. I'd even be happy to pay a sub fee to engage in those extra features since Dust--as I've played it--is simply the best MMOFPS around. And so far the only modern competitive FPS I can stomach. Perhaps it's the distinct lack of CODders.
Off topic, but I feel like EVE/Dust players are infinitely more intelligent and open to tactical warfare than any other gaming community I've ever been a part of (saccharine and fanboyish, I know it sounds). I actually quite like it. |
|
|
|