26 (edited by Sundial 2012-03-07 04:11:40)

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Tux wrote:
Arga wrote:

The main terminal has only 100k armor, but after 40k, it goes into reinforced mode and is immune to damage.

what a JOKE !!!

Kanogi wrote:

in my mesmer mk2 it takes me  ~40 sec to do 40k damage with no resist ~95 sec with 60% resist

/agree people can pump out massive amounts of DPS in seconds.


@ Arga the system you describe will just be a ****fest of attacking outposts on a daily basis just to throw them into reinforce. when the new system comes out if people are being forced to rep their out post every day because one or two guys come along and shoot it it will get real old real quick. 100K HP is nothing ..  anything less than 10 Heavy mechs should not even put a scratch on a out post.... you forget they have and are still going to implement larger bots. ... if they do your low HP system they will just have to change it when larger bots come out.

thanks for a good laugh tho lol

There needs to be specialized modules / weaponry imo to be able to even scratch the outpost in the first place.

Light ewar gangs / cheap *** fits shouldn't be able to pose any signifigant threat to an outpost.

100,000 damage can be done by a few light ewar in under an hour easily...

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Sundial wrote:

There needs to be specialized modules / weaponry imo to be able to even scratch the outpost in the first place.

Light ewar gangs / cheap *** fits shouldn't be able to pose any signifigant threat to an outpost.

100,000 damage can be done by a few light ewar in under an hour easily...

/me looks at wall damage resist...

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Cobalt wrote:
Sundial wrote:

There needs to be specialized modules / weaponry imo to be able to even scratch the outpost in the first place.

Light ewar gangs / cheap *** fits shouldn't be able to pose any signifigant threat to an outpost.

100,000 damage can be done by a few light ewar in under an hour easily...

/me looks at wall damage resist...

Doesn't address the problem of cheap fit t1 mechs being able to damage the extremely expensive outpost.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Not sure if the devs have it planned for the PBS or not.

But I imagine much larger amounts of HP on PBS modules/building. They have much higher resists seen already in game that it would take a long time or impossible for e-wars or even for HM to take a module down.

Maybe then it is a job for Artillery and Destroyer mechs?

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Destroyer mechs \o/

Re: PBS Blog discussion

@tux

You focused on the numbers and not the concept, but that's ok.

1st- The attackers have to spend the time to defeat your defenses and turn off the reactor. They can't simply show up and shoot the main terminal for 30 seconds.

2nd- The whole point of low HP is so attackers, after spending an hour defeating your defenses, don't have to sit there bored for another 60 minutes to do X amount of damage to kick in the reinforcement. You've already 'won' the battle, technically the main terminal could have 6 armor points, and you can take only 1 pt per day, it really doesn't matter. Or, it could simply be a counter of the number of times you shut the reactor down, and the main terminal just stays immune until that counter is 0, and then you can blow it up with 1 shot.

The mechanism isn't important. The key here is that defenders can repair 50% of the attackers damage, so if attackers want to destroy a main terminal, they have to do so over an extended period. If defenders don't repair the damage, then the time it takes for the attackers to destroy the main terminal is much faster.

This is in contrast to the dev proposed system, where a large Blob can attack and camp a main terminal for 12 hours until the reinforcement drops, then cycle rounds until it blows up.

The system has to accept the possiblity that a main terminal could get attacked by 500 Mesmer MK II's at some point, or realistically it could be 40 MK II heavy's even with the current pop.

I've just proposed a system, that still requires a force large enough to counter a bases defenses, but one that counters simply forming a blob and wiping out all the outposts in a weekend.

32

Re: PBS Blog discussion

@Arga
Yes, I understand the system you purpose is a lot different than what the Devs are planning. It seems that the system you are wanting is a test of how many time is someone will to go attack a terminal before they give up…. Can you say monotony? 

I am focusing on the HP amount because from what the DEVS have described so far as the taste of PBS mechanics, they gave us walls that fall apart over time and probes that don’t see &*^% . This makes me think that the defenses are going to be extremely weak and not capable of stopping a small force on their own. I am imagining something like turrets that have 5k hp and do the same amount of damage as a 3rd star Mech, while at the same time not being able to place them within 500~1000m of each other. This type of thing has been a pattern where the devs design a system that could be really good but they impose one or two limits which makes it barely beneficial at best.

For example the 3 side wall connections, this made it so you couldn’t make 3 layered wall sections. Why was this necessary? They already limited the number of walls you could place within a specific area. So how did we get around it? We left a space and made 2 rows of 2 layered walls.

What I am asking for is to make it impossible to damage the Main terminal in any significant way unless you have a massive force attacking it because whatever defenses they implement are going to be a joke … I guarantee they will not allow automated defenses to be effective enough to stop even a small scale attack. If I am wrong and they do then there’s nothing to stop me or others from engineering a defense system to stand up to even the biggest of blobs.

So the main terminal and the reactor are very important. All the structures are, the structures (facilities) need to be designed to need a massive attack to be harmed. Because there will be essentially no real defense.

*** I am talking about defense opposite TZ of Terminal Owner ***

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Okay this should be in the next blog, but I'm curious of what you think of the concept.

This was pretty much an epiphany today, because we were arguing about various reinforcement mechanics and complicated timers and whatnot.

The idea is pretty simple, and consists of two main concepts, without the need for arbitrary timers:
1. As long as there is any other building connected to your main terminal, the main terminal is invulnerable.
2. You can build and connect automatic repairers to every single building, which uses energy from the network.

This results in a double defense buffer: for one, as long as your energy reserves last, the most critical buildings are protected by the repairers (the repairers repair themselves too). And two, you do not have to worry that your main terminal with all your stuff gets blown up, because before that you'll be worried about all your reactors and facilities and everything else. Obviously this would also mean that the connections around your main terminal have to be the most well protected part of your base.

The system would ensure that the most extensive and well-thought-out networks would be the hardest to wipe out, and that the bigger it is, the safer you feel about storing your stuff there. However it also means a hard start because a lone terminal would be very vulnerable.

There are all kinds of other details like building HP and the speed of energy propagation through the network, but this is the basic premise of the idea. Now it's your turn to tell us why this wouldn't work.

34 (edited by Tux 2012-03-08 17:23:09)

Re: PBS Blog discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Okay this should be in the next blog, but I'm curious of what you think of the concept.

This was pretty much an epiphany today, because we were arguing about various reinforcement mechanics and complicated timers and whatnot.

The idea is pretty simple, and consists of two main concepts, without the need for arbitrary timers:
1. As long as there is any other building connected to your main terminal, the main terminal is invulnerable.
2. You can build and connect automatic repairers to every single building, which uses energy from the network.

This results in a double defense buffer: for one, as long as your energy reserves last, the most critical buildings are protected by the repairers (the repairers repair themselves too). And two, you do not have to worry that your main terminal with all your stuff gets blown up, because before that you'll be worried about all your reactors and facilities and everything else. Obviously this would also mean that the connections around your main terminal have to be the most well protected part of your base.

The system would ensure that the most extensive and well-thought-out networks would be the hardest to wipe out, and that the bigger it is, the safer you feel about storing your stuff there. However it also means a hard start because a lone terminal would be very vulnerable.

There are all kinds of other details like building HP and the speed of energy propagation through the network, but this is the basic premise of the idea. Now it's your turn to tell us why this wouldn't work.

This is going in the correct direction ... now the main target it the reactor lol kill the reactor and you stop the reps. . . there is always going to be a weak point but this sounds good so long as the reactors have the " proper" amount of HP. I am assuming from the advanced PBS network you will be bale to have several reactors.

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

I would say it depends on how fast you can disconnect all buildings from the Main Terminal. If its fast then I would say no, not a good idea.

But  the system is nice, i like it. I would change this to if you disconnect the Main Terminal from all Buildings a Timer starts of 12 hours. After this timer the building goes 12 hour in vulnerable mode. You can connect your buildings back but the timer is running. Then even a small force can disconnect the Terminal, and you coming back with a large force if the Terminal is vulnerable.

Taking a well defended Terminal should be an Epic Quest. It should take some planning.

This are my 2 cent.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Okay this should be in the next blog, but I'm curious of what you think of the concept.

This was pretty much an epiphany today, because we were arguing about various reinforcement mechanics and complicated timers and whatnot.

The idea is pretty simple, and consists of two main concepts, without the need for arbitrary timers:
1. As long as there is any other building connected to your main terminal, the main terminal is invulnerable.
2. You can build and connect automatic repairers to every single building, which uses energy from the network.

This results in a double defense buffer: for one, as long as your energy reserves last, the most critical buildings are protected by the repairers (the repairers repair themselves too). And two, you do not have to worry that your main terminal with all your stuff gets blown up, because before that you'll be worried about all your reactors and facilities and everything else. Obviously this would also mean that the connections around your main terminal have to be the most well protected part of your base.

The system would ensure that the most extensive and well-thought-out networks would be the hardest to wipe out, and that the bigger it is, the safer you feel about storing your stuff there. However it also means a hard start because a lone terminal would be very vulnerable.

There are all kinds of other details like building HP and the speed of energy propagation through the network, but this is the basic premise of the idea. Now it's your turn to tell us why this wouldn't work.

If you are saying that the surrounding support building need to be brought down to 0 hp from attack, I think you are on to something.  They should be a chore to take all the way down and should have to be taken out in order, from farthest away and head to the center hub.  If you are saying that each one can be destroyed, then that will cause a chit storm to replace destroyed outbuildings.  Would be great to be able to repair them and not have to replace them if attacked.  One more thought, if you could defend with a smaller group (off TZ lets say) from a defensive structure (like a shielded hub structure) to slow the aggressor down (his prime TZ), then even small groups could mount a PVP atmosphere instead of docking or turtling up until the aggressor leaves.  This would give everyone something to do even if they are out numbered.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Tux wrote:

this is going the the correct direction ... now the main target it the reactor lol kill the reactor and you stop the reps. . . there is always going to be a weak point but this sounds good so long as the reactors have the " proper" amount of HP.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, you can build as many reactors as you want, if you can feed them with fuel.
So yes, you assume right smile

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Takeo Prime wrote:

Would be great to be able to repair them and not have to replace them if attacked.

This will be most likely possible. Even more, you'll be able to use energy transfer/draining too, so if your reactor gets destroyed, in theory you could keep a turret functional with your own robot too.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

The system would ensure that the most extensive and well-thought-out networks would be the hardest to wipe out, and that the bigger it is, the safer you feel about storing your stuff there. .

I love the idea of letting the players determine how strong their defense is with the system you have outlined, rather then timers.

So in the end if the PBS is taken quickly they have no one to blame but them selves.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: PBS Blog discussion

This makes sense, as long as a tanked Lithus can't roll into a base on an off time zone, tank the turrets, and drop 20 plasma bombs to disconnect all buildings from the main terminal.

41

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Arga wrote:

This makes sense, as long as a tanked Lithus can't roll into a base on an off time zone, tank the turrets, and drop 20 plasma bombs to disconnect all buildings from the main terminal.

A good mix of dps and neut turrets would solve this

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Or, 30 tanked lithus's to distribute the neuts/dmg ....

basically, it shouldn't be possible to 'bypass' or tank defenses, then specifically target the connection lines to terminate connections to buildings, without actually having to attack any of hte buildings/defenses themselves.

43

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Arga wrote:

Or, 30 tanked lithus's to distribute the neuts/dmg ....

basically, it shouldn't be possible to 'bypass' or tank defenses, then specifically target the connection lines to terminate connections to buildings, without actually having to attack any of hte buildings/defenses themselves.

Agreed but as I saidbefore the chance of us getting automated defensive capability of that level to stop that type of attack are slim to none

Tux ~ Kill the messenger, he was part of it all along.
Euripides ~ Ten soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.
Bertrand Russell ~ War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Arga wrote:

Or, 30 tanked lithus's to distribute the neuts/dmg ....

basically, it shouldn't be possible to 'bypass' or tank defenses, then specifically target the connection lines to terminate connections to buildings, without actually having to attack any of hte buildings/defenses themselves.

I think the devs learn from the mistakes with police towers. I doubt they would allow for this to happen. Easy would be to make the turrets be a bit smart and change primaries up and focus fire on their own and move to the next target.

But like I said I am sure they learned from the police towers. smile

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: PBS Blog discussion

If a corporation can put billions of NIC into buildings and defenses, log out with everything all happy, then log in 8 hours later and the main terminal is destroyed because the automated defenses couldn't stop an attcking force, then it would be foolish for any corp to even try to build a complex, or to store anything in the main terminal.

So, while not having timers 'sounds' good, having a building 'buffer' also only works if the buffer is sufficient to cover outposts during off time zones. Which bascially means that the size and capability of the defenses would have to hold off an attacking force for 8 to 12 hours.

Putting myself in the attackers shoes, if 40 players continually attacked an outpost for 6 hours with no player resistance, and still couldn't blow it up, how would an attacker even hope to destroy an outpost with even 2 or 3 players adding to that defense?

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Arga wrote:

If a corporation can put billions of NIC into buildings and defenses, log out with everything all happy, then log in 8 hours later and the main terminal is destroyed because the automated defenses couldn't stop an attcking force, then it would be foolish for any corp to even try to build a complex, or to store anything in the main terminal.

So, while not having timers 'sounds' good, having a building 'buffer' also only works if the buffer is sufficient to cover outposts during off time zones. Which bascially means that the size and capability of the defenses would have to hold off an attacking force for 8 to 12 hours.

Putting myself in the attackers shoes, if 40 players continually attacked an outpost for 6 hours with no player resistance, and still couldn't blow it up, how would an attacker even hope to destroy an outpost with even 2 or 3 players adding to that defense?

I think there are more details to their idea that may lend a hand or explain how this can be handled.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: PBS Blog discussion

think of police towers - even their instant-kill-beam-of-doom with 1km range could be overcome with enough players working together... nowadays a tyrannos with energy-transfer-support could withstand that beam!

so, the concept of automated base defense has to be well thought and balanced with the rest of the game...

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Arga, while your concerns are valid, I feel they are a matter of balance, and not that of the underlying system.

There are many questions for which I don't have the answers. For example, if a 30-man group can destroy 10 buildings during an 8-hour mind-numbing shooting marathon, shouldn't they deserve it? Is this the kind of hardcore attitude that we need to balance towards? If not, will they have too much advantage over casual players? Should casual players have a gamma base at all? If you want to set up a gamma base in the first place, shouldn't you have the necessary manpower to field a minimal guarding force in every timezone? Not necessarily enough to repel the attackers, but at least someone who can feed your reactors and manage the energy priorities/links until your main force wakes up.

The basic issue here is (and always has been) the number of attackers, which we have no control over. We have to find a reasonable value for building armor HPs, the cycle time of repairers, how much energy they consume, how hard the turrets hit, and so on. Obviously this will be a constant race as the size of battles grows with our playerbase (hopefully), but I feel like this is the way to go because any kind of timer/reinforcement mechanic would be detrimental to a feeling of achievement in the game. Or to put it another way: which one is better, shooting buildings for 12 hours or being forced to wait 12 hours doing nothing? The first one is limited by the commitment of the players, the latter one is limited by the system.

Re: PBS Blog discussion

Annihilator wrote:

think of police towers - even their instant-kill-beam-of-doom with 1km range could be overcome with enough players working together... nowadays a tyrannos with energy-transfer-support could withstand that beam!

so, the concept of automated base defense has to be well thought and balanced with the rest of the game...

I agree.

That is why I would make it so that the turrets change up target and go after the support mechs that are transferring reps and energy to that tyranmos.

But I agree it has to be well thought out and balanced.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23

Re: PBS Blog discussion

DEV Zoom wrote:

Should casual players have a gamma base at all? If you want to set up a gamma base in the first place, shouldn't you have the necessary manpower to field a minimal guarding force in every timezone?

This is a very good point and goes back to the very basics of games like this game and stEVE.

"Don't use it if you can't afford to lose it."

I know for sure if I don't have the manpower to protect an outpost/PBS I will not build one, even if I think my turrets can defend it I will not rely on that alone.

John 3:16 - Timothy 2:23