Jump to content

Warp Disruption Area Generators (Bubbles)


Olmeca_Gold

Recommended Posts

Idea:

 

Deployable (some sort of re-scoopable static construct?) warp disruption area generators which cut the warp of ships short and stop them, if those ships enter the disruption area during their warps. Very similar to those we see in Eve. This idea is mechanically very applicable to Dual Universe given the game's current warp mechanics.

 

Why:

 

- A balanced sandbox game ecosystem needs non-consensual PvP. The kind of PvP that's not occurring between parties mutually agreeing to PvP. But the kind of PvP that's between pirates and prey, where at least one side (the prey) actually wants to have nothing to do with the said PvP. The prey has profit-based motivations such as hauling, mining, and so on. Then there should be people hunting the prey. And people hunting the pirates. A successful sandbox ecosystem thus finds a sustainable balance between these parties, where neither side's gameplay is neither too oppressive nor impossible; and there is meaningful play and counterplay for both sides.

 

- The current PvP iteration in DU has extremely minor opportunities for this kind of PvP. These pertain to seeking content in travel pipes between planets. And these sources will be diminishing once players progress in the learning curve, because it's extremely easy to avoid this kind of PvP as the prey side. And most importantly, once warp drives become more and more prevalent and common, they will hit the final nail as warps occur from a safe zone to a safe zone. Thus, warps need counterplay.

 

How could they be balanced?:

 

- The extent of the disruption zone can be balanced at the right window. Say if you are warping from the top of the Alioth Market Zone to Jago, you might get caught as it's a hot zone which pirates might be camping. But the same generator will not catch you if you move on Alioth 40 KM away from the markets at a 90 degrees direction, and start your warp there. I'd say 30-40 KM is good radius to go with. Thus, avoiding hot paths between planets during warp would be one counterplay (it's already super effective during  conventional space travel).

- The zones can appear in radar, and thus giving people at the landing side a chance to conduct recon and warn their friends before their warp.

- It can take time to deploy and scoop the generators. 

- The generators can be drastically costly, heavy, and be attacked/stolen. Thus forcing the pirates to "ante-up" if they want to catch people, opening up further conflict opportunities around the generators.

- The generators may not be deployed X SU within the distance of a non-PvP zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly with the cube meta right now, the cube meta guy already has 95% of the advantage against the guy in an actual ship designed to do anything other than pure pvp. Adding a way for that cube guy to keep you from using your warp drive to exit a no-win scenario takes the other 5% away. Great idea, would be neat to use if they fixed the cube meta issues... but allowing the cube meta guy to take away the haulers only defense against them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheKatzMan said:

Honestly with the cube meta right now, the cube meta guy already has 95% of the advantage against the guy in an actual ship designed to do anything other than pure pvp. Adding a way for that cube guy to keep you from using your warp drive to exit a no-win scenario takes the other 5% away. Great idea, would be neat to use if they fixed the cube meta issues... but allowing the cube meta guy to take away the haulers only defense against them...

Ofc pvpers wlll choose whatever meta that works best and the cube meta needs to be balanced. But I take it that's a separate issue than whether pvpers should be able to catch some non-pvpers.

 

PS: I would disagree with the claim that haulers' main defense against pvpers is warping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, good thing to have in game. Those generators generaly can be done in mirrior way of warp beacons with some additions.

 

1) placable on L space core

2) expensive

3) some cooldown to place/remove (not crazy, but just to not allow it be totaly spammable on whim).

 

4) my personal addition -- adding energy demand on power for "pulling" of tonnage from warp, like heavier ships someone want to hunt, more he need to invest in power system and its maintanance.

 

It will also (to extent) kinda 2 in 1 adding basis for orbital fortresses in future (I hope) more deep/nuanced PvP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, le_souriceau said:

Yep, good thing to have in game. Those generators generaly can be done in mirrior way of warp beacons with some additions.

 

1) placable on L space core

2) expensive

3) some cooldown to place/remove (not crazy, but just to not allow it be totaly spammable on whim).

 

4) my personal addition -- adding energy demand on power for "pulling" of tonnage from warp, like heavier ships someone want to hunt, more he need to invest in power system and its maintanance.

 

It will also (to extent) kinda 2 in 1 adding basis for orbital fortresses in future (I hope) more deep/nuanced PvP.

 

Yeah I like the tonnage differentiation idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non consensual is the first issue. Who’s going to enjoy mining on a planet for three days just to have all there work taken off them in the five minute trip back home. It is not realistic that in the future a L core heavy 10KT ship has no way to defend itself from a little XS core ship.

 

if PvP was that popular there wouldn’t be a shortage of consensual targets out there. Non consensual is just going to push away players.

 

This far into the future there would also be very good sub atomic marking. Every item of ore, every ship element would be marked. Already in the real world we track materials from source, through production, through to sales. This is to ensure working conditions, illegal activities like out of area fishing etc. why would this stop rather than getting a lot better.

 

Any material, and ore, and element which comes from a non consensual sale should be marked as stolen. Regular markets should not accept it, it should only be tradable person to person, and maybe a few black markets. The tag should stay, somany item made with stolen material is still market.

 

it has no effect in its performance, but any simple look at the item will show it was stolen or built from stolen material.

 

lots would be fine with that and buy it for the cheaper price, others would have morals, and some would have no morals but don’t want to be seen with materials marked as stolen.

 

now that would be balancing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CoyoteNZ said:

Non consensual is the first issue. Who’s going to enjoy mining on a planet for three days just to have all there work taken off them in the five minute trip back home. It is not realistic that in the future a L core heavy 10KT ship has no way to defend itself from a little XS core ship.

Then you should think about escorts before choosing to take risks, might require something shocking tho  like cooperating with others, failing that you can have a smaller faster ship and spend less time mining.

 

L core ships were supposed to  require crews everyone swanning around in personal agg L cores is another result of the absense of risk v reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HellToupee said:

Then you should think about escorts before choosing to take risks, might require something shocking tho  like cooperating with others, ...

So, you are forcing solo players to either play with an org or give up mining?

 

Yes it is a MMO, put there are still a lot of players who prefer to play solo. They pay their subs, they play the game like the rest of us. They can’t be cut out otherwise you lose a lot of potential customers which games require to keep being updated and maintained, and you then start developing toxic mega orgs which force their game style because if you aren’t with one of them you can’t get much out of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/4/2020 at 12:42 PM, CoyoteNZ said:

Non consensual is the first issue. Who’s going to enjoy mining on a planet for three days just to have all there work taken off them in the five minute trip back home.

A sandbox can find a balance between the interests of the prey and the interests of the pirate. In such a game you won't lose your 3 days of effort every single time, but very rarely. You will have opportunities and counterplay to avoid pirates.

 

There is no point in discussing whether piracy should exist in DU. You can prefer game with minimal PvP. But NQ is publicly going the other way. I think they are 100% right that's the better direction for what DU can be.

 

Lastly, I wouldn't talk about what's currently popular in a game this early in beta. PvP is too primitive to be widely popular. That doesn't mean a good PvP system wouldn't be central to a popular Dual Universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Some kind of mechanic to provide an answer to those (people like me) who use warp to bypass the sorry state of pvp is required.

 

The problem with implementing this now is the sorry state of pvp, if you want to kill the game then implementing this sort of mechanic now would be a good idea, if you want to build it up then fix the myriad issues with ship building first then look to provide the sandbox with further tools to answer problems such as a players use of warp drive.


The argument of 'well you need to join an org or hire an escort' reminds me of the very early days of eve which were....interesting......at first.

Back before jump freighters (this is going back quite some time so i apologise if i don't get this down 100 percent) corps/alliances would use freighters to handle the moving of materials from high sec to null sec and null sec to high sec.

Freighters for those who don't know were completely at the mercy of....anything, they could take somewhat of a pounding (meh not really) but ultimately they really needed protection or an escort, the answer to this were operations consisting of escorting a freighter or multiple freighters to and from.

 

Maybe the first few of these ops might have been novel for some but the truth is they were tedious, most of the time they were also a mandate if you wanted to remain in the good graces of your corp you would be taking part in that escort mission whether you like it or not.

I always thought the attackers had it good, they didn't spend hours planning a route, they weren't rounding up the troops to do something that was just not fun after doing it for the umpteenth time, all they needed was a spy/good bit of intel and then a rally at the potential of a freighter kill.

Now there were/are things that could be done to protect the freighter (electronic warfare, logistics support etc) but it is a lot of effort and was just really not fun, i didn't know too many people who loved the idea of an escort run.

My overall point being is it wasn't seen as fun back then and I can't imagine it will be so much fun now, especially with all the issues in pvp, all it did was foster a mantra where players were forced to take part in an activity that they didn't find fun and i for one would rather the meme of a 'second job' remained part of eve :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Start all over again.
the intro clearly speaks of the rebuilding of Humanity, not its destruction. \ All PVP ideas are stupid and isiotic.
Each occupied zone is a safe zone.
If you want to shoot, let the developers allow you to shoot with Surrogacy.
You can move to government ships and there you can fight to expand the Empire and the safe empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vazqez said:

Start all over again.
the intro clearly speaks of the rebuilding of Humanity, not its destruction. \ All PVP ideas are stupid and isiotic.
Each occupied zone is a safe zone.
If you want to shoot, let the developers allow you to shoot with Surrogacy.
You can move to government ships and there you can fight to expand the Empire and the safe empire.

I hate to break it to you, but NQ want space to be focused on PvP. It is even on the main game site. If you hate PvP that much you will likely struggle to enjoy this game. 

pvp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, included yes, but hardly the focus of space. Notice, "Don't want PVP? Stick to the Safe zones and  you'll be fine."

 

Now, one can argue where and how large the safe zones should be, but it cannot be argued that NQ wants the space within a safe zone focused on pvp.

 

That being said, your point likely should read something along the lines, that outside the safe zone, you'll need to be wary of pirates and other pvpers. So, more truthfully, the risk of pvp is a present danger, but not the focus of space travel outside the zone. If it were the focus, then it would also be unavoidable or nearly so.

 

A warp bubble is far off in the distance, if ever, in this game's life. For one thing, until there is a sufficient and significant buff to a ships passive pvp defense (ECM, counter-missiles, chances to max speed and accel, etc), the primacy of the attack already exists.  A pirate does not need to prevent someone from warping, the cost of warping already prevents many/most players from warping.

 

Declaring that the hauler should have gotten themselves an escort is ludicrous, given that a pirate with a warp disruption device would be more than able to take on a hauler, while solo. If what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, then any warp disruption device should prevent any other weapon from being on the ship, thus requiring at least a dedicated ship to carry it.

 

A silly claim to make; not at all an argument.

 

An outnumbered hauler should be at a disadvantage. With numbers being equal, as the game currently exists, the advantage is too far on the side of the attacker, even where the numbers involved are 1v1. Where the defenders currently escape is more due to error on the part of the attacker than some brilliant defense (running away) on the part of the defender. 

 

Until a parity or near-parity between  the two exists, a warp disruption device should be a non-starter.

 

I am waiting for someone to suggest cloaking devices for xs cores only...

 

Let EVE be what it is. Give DU a chance to become something more, if it will.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piracy PVP is not the focus for NQ in their vision and implementation. That's not to say it should not be catered for, but this is a given.

 

There should be, and NQ has said there will be, more options for both offensive and defensive gameplay in this regard though. I do think that EVE style bubbles in a game where (as of yet) no choke points exist are not really that viable. It's much easier to choose a different exit point for warp as well as a starting point which mostly depends on where you depart from.

 

But I could absolutely see snaring mechanics as well as counters for "the other side"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

 

But I could absolutely see snaring mechanics as well as counters for "the other side"

Snaring isn't necessary at all, if the combat mechanics allowed players to target ship systems as a group, over blanket shooting at a target. Were players able to specifically target "Engines" and then have a greater chance of hitting the engines (at the same time as missing other parts of the ship), then said target could be slowed to the point where a boarding could occur. One could argue that the damage to engines caused side effects forcing the engines to slow the ship's velocity..blah...blah.

 

This would also allow for cargo holds to receive much less damage, unless targeted, for pirates to then plunder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blazemonger said:

I'd say the chance of DU ever getting the ability to target subsystems is minute at best.. But that subject is beyond the scope of this thread

And I simply disagree. PVP is already planned to undergo some hefty changes and will likely go through even further refinement before full release. This game is far more granular than the other (popular) space game and a similarly granular combat system makes far more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PVP is lock-fire like EVE, there is no way to lock specific parts of a construct, just he construct itself. From the attackers perspective, there is only a core and what gets hit and how is entirely RNG. I would not know which "other space game" you refer to but I know of none that could be compared and against which DU has a more granular approach.

 

There is nothing at all that would indicate more granular targeting for CvC combat. Could it happen sometime in the future? Perhaps, but I'd not count on anything like that happening, even if possible, for several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

PVP is lock-fire like EVE

Currently. And it is a trash set of mechanics at this time. It made a sort of sense in EVE, given that the ships had large numbers of crew relative to class, represented in the person of the player, whereas here, the crews are players on the ship.  The scales are different, although the current output is similar.

 

They have already said there will be significant work on pvp throughout the upcoming year.

 

Best to bring up suggestions and discussion concerning concerns/issues regarding the current iteration of pvp now, instead of waiting until it is already set in stone and immovable.

 

The granularity of this game is readily evident in the method of construction. While elements do not fall under this, their placement and composition within the construct certainly does. There are no specific hardpoints that types of weapons must be fitted into, not is are there specific restrictions as to size of engine, fuel tanks, and the like. As long as everything fits within the build area for the core size and the elements do not overlap each other's space, the player can build it as he or she sees fit...regardless of what logic would require. Granularity.

 

Furthermore, as elements are ALL already classified and and categorized (Transportation Elements - Engines - Space Engines - Large Space Engines - Military Space Engine L) it is not inconceivable that the foundation for a more granular approach to ship combat damage allocation already exists, even if not originally intended to be so.

 

Neither is it impossible nor  improbable that instead of a single button that a gunner clicks on to shoot the weapon at his/her station (seat), that other buttons could be placed there named "Engines" "Command" (meaning cockpit, command seat, etc), "Weapons", "Cargo", and that since each of the elements already falls under one and only one of these categories, that a combat algorithm could include a modification to the hit chance to damage that specific class of element and the divide the damage amongst the elements of that class on the target ship.

 

Such differentiation in targeting should require a reduction in hit chance, for sake of balance, as well as a chance to apply damage to ships is is already done (random element/honeycomb being struck), instead of the specified targeted system.

 

The implications of this type of mechanic for ship to ship combat should be clear, and the development of tactics and the nuances of it would certainly be an area that players would dive into, especially when/if defensive systems come into being, like positional armor, shields, ECM, and the like.

 

Additionally, should such at time arrive that actual XS fighters use a targeting reticle, they would be able to aim at specific points on a target ship (limited by the player's skill in aiming), would it not be both strange and silly if the damage from their shots be randomly applied to the target?

 

Lastly, this would open up the array of weapon types to individual uses that would give far more meaning to weapon selection beyond whatever the current meta dictates. For example missiles could be limited to random application of damage, rail-guns have a lesser chance of hitting the specific target, but do lots of damage, and lasers having the greatest chance of hitting the targeted system, but doing less damage.

 

One can see that pirates will be more likely, as a group, to want to save the cargo, but kill the engines and pilot, so missiles and perhaps rail guns would be less utilized, but defenders would be all too happy to use missiles as they are not concerned with salvaging the cargo hold of a pirate, but rather getting rid of the threat as quickly as possible.

 

Now, given the current state of affairs and a system based more along the lines of what I am suggesting, which would you honestly prefer to play with, as a pirate or hauler?

 

Right now, ship to ship combat require ZERO skill from gunners, and a measure of skill from the ships pilots, unless you think that clicking the mouse button when the hit chance bar is higher is a "skill" to be commended and applauded.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Penwith said:

Currently. And it is a trash set of mechanics at this time. It made a sort of sense in EVE, given that the ships had large numbers of crew relative to class, represented in the person of the player, whereas here, the crews are players on the ship.  The scales are different, although the current output is similar.

 

NQ has been very clear why they went with lock-fire and have also been very clear it's not likely to ever change. Possibly they may find a way to do things different for AvA but that is not for another year , probably longer.

Also, DU is not about combat and while it plays an important role in the game as a whole, it's not what the game is about. So in that respect NQ will likely not give it more room than it needs for their vision of how it applies in game, especially as what you would want would draw heavily on the limited band with and resources they have..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

NQ has been very clear why they went with lock-fire and have also been very clear it's not likely to ever change. Possibly they may find a way to do things different for AvA but that is not for another year , probably longer.

Also, DU is not about combat and while it plays an important role in the game as a whole, it's not what the game is about. So in that respect NQ will likely not give it more room than it needs for their vision of how it applies in game, especially as what you would want would draw heavily on the limited band with and resources they have..

And, as I stated, if they are overhauling or changing PVP in significant ways in the upcoming year, it is a good as time as any to make suggestions towards that end now, instead of remaining quiet. I agree that combat is not the focus, but you must also agreed that they have said they are adding more in the form of territory combat and PVP, so my suggestion on this matter is not out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...