Jump to content

Give Warp Beacons a purpose


JohnnyTazer

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

I stated that in my original post.  All your arguments are invalid because without protection no one would do any of those things.  

then you dont understand what i'm writing :)

And no, there are several of those aspects that can be usefull in the current state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maxim Kammerer said:

I don't expect that to change anytime soon. Constructions in PvP zone do and will require permanent defence. That makes them limited to big international orgs only. They will use warp beacons to mine valuable asteroids in deep space as fast as possible. You are pretty much suggesting to give them control over the outer planets as well. I don't share your optimism that they would provide public access for a reasonable fee. They would reather limit access to their own members and lock their bridgeheads for everybody else in order to get exclusive control over the recources. I wouldn't even surprised about letters of marque to fight slowboating with piracy.

You haven't played eve have you? Making something public and charging a fee makes you more money than any pirating can do.  And no it wont come soon, but it should be on the table for upcoming.  Because if they dont, its gonna be a gankers paradise when territory warfare comes and we have interdiction and can camp an entire planet and shoot anything that warps in. Because that's exactly what will happen.  Which is fine by me, but I'm offering ideas for more balanced gameplay that offers some protection for warp. 

 

Once outer planet safe zones are dropped (which is somewhat soon according to JC, that is coming with territory warfare in estimated 9 months) my group can easily field enough ships to completely camp a planet and shoot every single ship that warps to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vylqun said:

then you dont understand what i'm writing :)

And no, there are several of those aspects that can be usefull in the current state.

I do understand.  Not my fault you cant see past your own hand.  Keeping warp to planets actually benefits me personally, but its gonna hurt a lot of people when they drop the outer safe zones, as the group I'm with can completely camp down a planet, shooting every single hauler that warps in. And will form to shoot any pvp groups attempting to stop us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

I do understand.  Not my fault you cant see past your own hand.  Keeping warp to planets actually benefits me personally, but its gonna hurt a lot of people when they drop the outer safe zones, as the group I'm with can completely camp down a planet, shooting every single hauler that warps in. And will form to shoot any pvp groups attempting to stop us.

We will see if they drop the outter planet safe zones. They can do TW's without dropping the safe zone at all. Since they have described the idea that only certain tiles should be attackable (surrounded by protected tiles) , what makes you think it's just gonna be open warfare in atmo? What good is 'safe tiles' is everyone flying or walking is subject to being attacked? 

 

I have seen nothing about TW's that says planet safe zone has to go away. Your likely in for a world of disappointment with TW's and your dreams of how it will be implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Making something public and charging a fee makes you more money than any pirating can do.

I am not talking about profit from piracy but from exclusive access to resources. That is even more profitable than protection money fees.

 

4 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Because if they dont, its gonna be a gankers paradise when territory warfare comes and we have interdiction and can camp an entire planet and shoot anything that warps in. Because that's exactly what will happen.

That's what JC is interested in. He is dreaming of a virtual civilisation that protects itself from such chaos. And of course it will fail.

 

5 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

but I'm offering ideas for more balanced gameplay that offers some protection for warp.

Only for the few with access to warp beacons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Xennial said:

We will see if they drop the outter planet safe zones. They can do TW's without dropping the safe zone at all. Since they have described the idea that only certain tiles should be attackable (surrounded by protected tiles) , what makes you think it's just gonna be open warfare in atmo? What good is 'safe tiles' is everyone flying or walking is subject to being attacked? 

 

I have seen nothing about TW's that says planet safe zone has to go away. Your likely in for a world of disappointment with TW's and your dreams of how it will be implemented.

Then so is a ton of people. And I'll just move onto another game.  You think they are gonna make it so I can attack a territory, but cant attack anyone on unclaimed tiles? Good luck with a system like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Then so is a ton of people. And I'll just move onto another game.  You think they are gonna make it so I can attack a territory, but cant attack anyone on unclaimed tiles? Good luck with a system like that.

They have said multiple times they want PvP to be means to end not the end goal. If Tiles have value to occupy via Autmoated ore generation & energy values for industry machines then they are worth fighting over , and remember you will have to attack from the outside into surrounded tiles. Well if you can just shoot any ships / people that are in the air then there is no 'safe' area is there? Perhaps they solve that by allowing automated defenses that cannot be attacked back till the tile is vulnerable. There are a number of ways it could be done with or without a safe zone. My guess is that you don't get the unfettered atmo PvP you think your gonna get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Xennial said:

They have said multiple times they want PvP to be means to end not the end goal. If Tiles have value to occupy via Autmoated ore generation & energy values for industry machines then they are worth fighting over , and remember you will have to attack from the outside into surrounded tiles. Well if you can just shoot any ships / people that are in the air then there is no 'safe' area is there? Perhaps they solve that by allowing automated defenses that cannot be attacked back till the tile is vulnerable. There are a number of ways it could be done with or without a safe zone. My guess is that you don't get the unfettered atmo PvP you think your gonna get.

That's not my guess at all. My guess is, any tile you own, you can land ships on and be safe. And if you live in an area with a circle of 40 tiles, those are all safe. But you have to attack outer tiles to get to inner tiles. Attacking a tile would start a "timer" and then and only then (maybe 48 hours later) you can attack ships on that specific tile. Giving the person who owns it Time to plan a defense or even evacuate. 

 

So what does this all mean? It means tiles that are owned are "temporary" safe zones.  But all tiles that are "unclaimed" gives you the ability to target and attack any ship if you so choose.  So yes, it won't be a big free for all, and tiles wont be easy to attack.  But people will often try to hit ships/haulers coming and going from planets and tiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, a means to an end can literally be anything I want it to be. Maybe by pirating all around a planet is my means.  And is my ends. Let's not forget this, NQs official Twitter account posted about my blockade of Talemai. And it sparked a lot of activity and ended in one huge battle that tons of people enjoyed. So yes, my bet is on the outer safe zones being completely removed and regulated to temporarily safe zone for only tiles that are owned (but are attackable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

That's not my guess at all. My guess is, any tile you own, you can land ships on and be safe. And if you live in an area with a circle of 40 tiles, those are all safe. But you have to attack outer tiles to get to inner tiles. Attacking a tile would start a "timer" and then and only then (maybe 48 hours later) you can attack ships on that specific tile. Giving the person who owns it Time to plan a defense or even evacuate. 

 

So what does this all mean? It means tiles that are owned are "temporary" safe zones.  But all tiles that are "unclaimed" gives you the ability to target and attack any ship if you so choose.  So yes, it won't be a big free for all, and tiles wont be easy to attack.  But people will often try to hit ships/haulers coming and going from planets and tiles.

What good does landing and being safe give you if the minute you float up you can be attacked? 

 

I could also see atmo 'pvp' being attacking ships vs ground installations rather then ship vs ship. 

 

If ground installation defenses have to be manned it would make perfect sense that attacks have to be declared against a tile , then a time window opens up where ships can attack the defense installations and visa versa. Leaving the rest of the planet / safe zone etc intact.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xennial said:

What good does landing and being safe give you if the minute you float up you can be attacked? 

 

I could also see atmo 'pvp' being attacking ships vs ground installations rather then ship vs ship. 

 

If ground installation defenses have to be manned it would make perfect sense that attacks have to be declared against a tile , then a time window opens up where ships can attack the defense installations and visa versa. Leaving the rest of the planet / safe zone etc intact.

 

 

The tile goes way way up you know. Like thousands of meters.  While we are only speculating, I highly doubt it works the way you claim it does.  There is no way to regulate that.  And it doesn't lean towards emergant gameplay which is what has been touted many times by NQ.  And also that sounds massively boring.  But If you honestly think that's how atmo pvp will work, you are in for a big disappointment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blazemonger said:

Newbies should die when they make newbie mistakes. Getting killed in a game like DU needs to happen to establish a sense of loss and the value of mitigating risk. There is some serious and interesting data from CCP that shows that new players that die early on in them playing EVE are actually more likely to stick around and progress and I believe that for DU this certainly will hold true as well.

Sound like that polling question could easily be waaay off, like what if they only asked existing active players their by loosing out on all those that quit or, if they ask all registered accounts but only get a reply from active users. both scenarios can twist the statistic.  Oooh and did those new players have the beginner frigate you get got free, so nothing lost?

 

the key is to make losing fun, some how :)

 

It's actually true, when i started eve i was kill in some cruiser (bc), nothing fancy, and could easily load up again and attack my killers(i died again) but i hardly lost anything and actually joined them.

Later in the game when the value of my stuff increased and the time invested was lost, the fun went a way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnnyTazer said:

I do understand.  Not my fault you cant see past your own hand.  Keeping warp to planets actually benefits me personally, but its gonna hurt a lot of people when they drop the outer safe zones, as the group I'm with can completely camp down a planet, shooting every single hauler that warps in. And will form to shoot any pvp groups attempting to stop us.

Let me explain it to you once more. You proposed two things

1) protection in any kind for space constructs

2) disable warping to planets

 

No one (so far) disputed point 1.

But you seem to fail to understand that being able to warp to planets doesnt automatically mean its mandatory, you can very well warp to a space station (which is protected if point 1 is implemented) even if you have the option to warp to planets, so taking away the opportunity to warp to planets doesn't make any sense. You like risk? Warp straight to the planet. You don't like risk? Pay the bill and warp to a warp beacon close to the planet. Both is possible and doesn't contradict each other. 

You try to entangle point 1 and point 2 even tho both don't have anything to do with each other, and thats what you fail to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xennial said:

We will see if they drop the outter planet safe zones. They can do TW's without dropping the safe zone at all.

Nq has been pretty clear regarding safezones around the outer planets being removed once Territory warfare comes in. And frankly, they should and I can only agree with that.

 

 

1 hour ago, Xennial said:

What good is 'safe tiles' is everyone flying or walking is subject to being attacked? 

I do expect that tiles with a TU on them will indeed see weapons being disabled. As I also expect that effect to be on the entire tile and at any altitude upto space and that means that we will start seeing safe corridors into and out of planets.

 

It will be a matter of protecting the exit of the corridor using a space station to allow ships to leave and get to warp in relative safety. What will change is that the defensive positions will be such that the combat PVP players will get vocal about how this still prevents them from getting to haulers.. They will need to start putting effort, co-ordination and resources into getting what they want and while some orgs will be able to do that, they will pick their targets carefully. Mostly not much will change and the few that are waiting for their opportunity to get killz by attacking haulers will find it's not that easy.

 

NQ is very tightlipped about all this, probably because they themselves really have no idea yet how any of this should work so it could end up entirely different. We'll see..

 

If a warp beacon  allows for a very close landing (I have not yet experienced that so can't say) and station shielding will extend far enough then this can be a very safe option which needs to not be cheap but can't be as expensive as it is now. 250M for a beacon alone is too much, that price needs to come down to 30-50M to be a viable option. If and when that happens then yes, I can see the argument for warp to require a beacon and no longer be possible direct to a planet. But I have a feeling NQ will not think this through to that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

If a warp beacon  allows for a very close landing (I have not yet experienced that so can't say) and station shielding will extend far enough then this can be a very safe option which needs to not be cheap but can't be as expensive as it is now. 250M for a beacon alone is too much, that price needs to come down to 30-50M to be a viable option. If and when that happens then yes, I can see the argument for warp to require a beacon and no longer be possible direct to a planet. But I have a feeling NQ will not think this through to that level.

It's hard to say what their grand vision for PvP is as it relates to things like warp beacons etc. They are so cost prohibitive in their current incarnation and take so long to produce if they can be easily attacked and destroyed outside the safe zone they are unlikely to ever be viable. As you mention if you can place a warp beacon close enough to a planet body to allow someone to jump into a tile created safe zone from a planet surface PvP'ers will just rage but it's the better option. If a warp beacon creates a 'safe' sphere in space then that might work but have my doubts NQ could pull that off in a viable way.

 

They have talked about things like warp interdiction. Warp interdiction is a horrible mechanic that frankly should never be added as it's only purpose if to formalize ganking. Having warp beacons provide a safe zone to warp into , and tying the warp beacons safety to a tile safe zone extension allowing a pipe down to the safe area on a planet is a much more preferred option in my mind. It allows the PvP'ers to work to cut off warp access to the planet by taking out the ground installations protecting the warp beacon , and then follow up by taking out the warp beacon itself. They can camp the standard planet warp destination to their hearts content then if there is no default planet safe zone.

 

I can see ways of doing TW / Safe zone / Warp beacons in many different directions. It just depends on the path NQ chooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vylqun said:

Let me explain it to you once more. You proposed two things

1) protection in any kind for space constructs

2) disable warping to planets

 

No one (so far) disputed point 1.

But you seem to fail to understand that being able to warp to planets doesnt automatically mean its mandatory, you can very well warp to a space station (which is protected if point 1 is implemented) even if you have the option to warp to planets, so taking away the opportunity to warp to planets doesn't make any sense. You like risk? Warp straight to the planet. You don't like risk? Pay the bill and warp to a warp beacon close to the planet. Both is possible and doesn't contradict each other. 

You try to entangle point 1 and point 2 even tho both don't have anything to do with each other, and thats what you fail to understand.

People constantly say "PvP needs to be meaningful, and not mindless killing!"  Well what is more meaningful than having beacons be the only thing you warp to. Now you have legit meaning to befriend people, to gain access, or place your own, or shoot anyone else that puts one near you so you get all the warps to there and collect the fee's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

 

 

see, there we slowly close in on yoir real intent, capitalizing on warp beacons. Thats all your argument seems to be about.

 

 

 

wow this forum sucks on mobile :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

 

If a warp beacon  allows for a very close landing (I have not yet experienced that so can't say) and station shielding will extend far enough then this can be a very safe option which needs to not be cheap but can't be as expensive as it is now. 250M for a beacon alone is too much, that price needs to come down to 30-50M to be a viable option. If and when that happens then yes, I can see the argument for warp to require a beacon and no longer be possible direct to a planet. But I have a feeling NQ will not think this through to that level.

Right now you land 10km from the warp beacon.  I feel that could easily be adjusted.  And dropping a space station would give a few km leeway on its protection bubble.  Up to NQ how they want space stations to be actually an option in a pvp zone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Xennial said:

As you mention if you can place a warp beacon close enough to a planet body to allow someone to jump into a tile created safe zone from a planet surface PvP'ers will just rage but it's the better option. If a warp beacon creates a 'safe' sphere in space then that might work but have my doubts NQ could pull that off in a viable way.

If they rage, let them rage. If they are serious about the game and want their content they should strategize and come for it. There is plenty of combat PVP focused player sin game that can and will do that and will play out he role I believe PV should have in the game. And win or lose, I am fie with that.

 

If "we" can build and provide interesting puzzles and challenges to "those" who want to come and solve them then great. The ones raging if this plays out he way I hope it will I have little concern or patience for. They are just after no effort and no risk pewpew and I could not care less what they want or think.

 

  

3 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Right now you land 10km from the warp beacon.

That seems OK in the context of a defended and shielded station. If there is a small gap between where you land and to where a protective shield reaches but that distance can be covered with defensive weapons on the stations I'd also be fine with that. It would provide a risk factor for all sides..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vylqun said:

repeating what you said doesnt make it true... it astonishes me how you fail to differentiate.

Once again, you can't see past your own hand.   Its not my fault youre not smart enough.  Sure, for me personally, I would want them to KEEP us able to warp to planets.  I'll kill way more haulers that way.  But in the end I don't think that is what could be best for the game.  For one, people shouldn't automatically have access to every place in the game.  In EvE You cant use peoples jump bridges in nullsec to jump around.  You go to unknown territory in nullsec, lowsec, wormhole space you get shit on unless you brought a fleet ready to fight.  It creates engaging gameplay, and helps people develop ownership of said areas.

 

In DU the game would be better in that regard too. And the power struggles that go with it.  If you want you can always slowboat or use means to try to smuggle shit in and out, but that creats a better dynamic with warp beacons and Space stations something meaningful to control, and fight over.  And im sure many planets in the pvp zone will try to establish Public ones and do what they can to tax and make money off of that.  Long term that sounds way more fun and engaging that what we currently have, or what is currently projected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

 

  

That seems OK in the context of a defended and shielded station. If there is a small gap between where you land and to where a protective shield reaches but that distance can be covered with defensive weapons on the stations I'd also be fine with that. It would provide a risk factor for all sides..

 

Ya anything close to that in context im fine with.  This goes along the line with open world games, people try to make places their "home". And those with the means to defend/enforce what they want lay claim to it.   Warp Beacons have a chance to be a huge deal, and a great engame (not talking about cost) but their viability, and their meaning.  If someone doesn't own one or have access to one around a planet its hard for them to force project.  Its something Eve has dealt with a lot over the years, especially with super caps.  Force projection is a real thing.  Warping imo needs to be more meaningful right now in some fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Once again, you can't see past your own hand.   Its not my fault youre not smart enough.  

ppl who feel superior while talking crap sure are hard to argue with, i'll leave it at that. No point further discussing nonsense that will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vylqun said:

ppl who feel superior while talking crap sure are hard to argue with, i'll leave it at that. No point further discussing nonsense that will never happen.

Then stop commenting.  Though it is a bit amusing listing to you cry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JohnnyTazer said:

Then stop commenting.  Though it is a bit amusing listing to you cry. 

its not crying, more like despair because you aren't able to grasp the difference between "you can use warp beacons to be safe" and "you must use warp beacons"... but might just be a language barrier, i'll give you the benefit of doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Currently I do not regard anything as permanent with regards to how warp works. The point is fair that at the current landing distance from warp many non combatants would find themselves holding the short end of the stick. Seeing how NQ has "solved" other situations though, I think it's more likely they will just set he landing distance at the edge of atmosphere allowing ships to just dive in and use corridors to get down safely.

 

In that regard the OP idea is much preferable actually as it opens up a lot of possible ways to play these situations. But it's too smart and too complex for NQ to consider I'm afraid. Imagine they'd actually start working on and implementing ideas like this.

 

And with regards to the argument there is two parts to this discussion I'd certainly agree but they are both part of the same potential solution to a new situation once safezones go away. And as such, they are both valid equally and mostly complement each other.

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...