Sieges and their effect to PvP

[J.D.]

yea, they made these ships with the intent on helping the non pvp people explore. But, the pvp people will exploit this into something massive. with this mechanic, a good plan would be this:

I decide to attack this company that annoys me, so i take my civilian capital ship, with a decent sized group of people with me. the ship has the tools we need to camp there for at least a week straight. we have a factory aboard, and we know what resources we need for our chosen fighter we will use. so we can make X amount of them. Or repair if we can recover. We have reconstruction machines for respawn points aboard as well. The mission is to camp that station for a week, we kill anything that comes, or leaves. after this, the group will be so annoyed, they wont be logging on, or they are just dry from resources from trying to fight us off. Either way, we have successfully weakened them with our invincible ship, now we just mop up. When this happens, we send in military cap ship, and raid with little resistance due to a lack of resources to defend on their end, or the members not being online to see the raid timer.

The only drawback the CCAP ship has in hopes of maybe doing away with this tactic is the limit of ships it can release over time. But, with some patience, it can still get the job done. No, you cant get it done in 30 minutes. but if i deploy my ship to that location for at least a week, i can do alot of damage. So this CCAP ship can do more than just sit and harass. It can prep well for a raid, unless there is a detail im missing.

Heres my suggestion, for what little its worth. civ cap ships can lose their shield when they get so close to another station, or MCAP ship IF THEY choose to enter that area.. they cannot opt to harass with a civ ship. at all without losing it... Or the devs could just make it to where the ship wont leave to a location that fits the description.. BUT, if a MCAP ship warps to THEM in a remote location, the Civ Cap stays immune. might be a dumb idea. But, its a start. An idea like this limits the civilian ship to the purpose it was made for, in my opinion. Thats to explore the non safe area for people not looking to pvp.. Also, keeping the civ ship out of the belt.

 

[Bestcoaster]

the ccaps can't *get* to the 'FOB positions' in the belt without stations. and a single heavy freighter could set up a station with similar capabilities in a couple hours if not less. sure, it could get siege by an MCAP, then you could just set up another one the next day... fundamentally the limit is your resources.

yea, they made these ships with the intent on helping the non pvp people explore. But, the pvp people will exploit this into something massive. with this mechanic, a good plan would be this:

I decide to attack this company that annoys me, so i take my civilian capital ship, with a decent sized group of people with me. the ship has the tools we need to camp there for at least a week straight. we have a factory aboard, and we know what resources we need for our chosen fighter we will use. so we can make X amount of them. Or repair if we can recover. We have reconstruction machines for respawn points aboard as well. The mission is to camp that station for a week, we kill anything that comes, or leaves. after this, the group will be so annoyed, they wont be logging on, or they are just dry from resources from trying to fight us off. Either way, we have successfully weakened them with our invincible ship, now we just mop up. When this happens, we send in military cap ship, and raid with little resistance due to a lack of resources to defend on their end, or the members not being online to see the raid timer.

The only drawback the CCAP ship has in hopes of maybe doing away with this tactic is the limit of ships it can release over time. But, with some patience, it can still get the job done. No, you cant get it done in 30 minutes. but if i deploy my ship to that location for at least a week, i can do alot of damage. So this CCAP ship can do more than just sit and harass. It can prep well for a raid, unless there is a detail im missing.

1. the ccap can't reach a close position if the target is inside a belt, which it probably will be.
2. any appreciable corporation station will likely have an SZ of significant size, rendering it difficult to camp
3. similarly it will have more ships and resources to bring to the table than your ccap will
4. most importantly you're spending 5x the amount of effort to try to camp the station than grief you are causing the defenders. you are literally wasting enormous amounts of your own time VS just conducting a station attack. Even if you somehow keep up a constant camp they can all just pick an hour to log on and vaporize whoever you have camping then and go about their business. assuming they don't just laugh at you and go somewhere else, or are doing their cargo transshipment in CCAPs to begin with, which they probably would!


the main places you're going to see a lot of harassment around safezones are probably planet bases, since there's going to be many bases on a given planet.

 

[J.D.]

the ccaps can't *get* to the 'FOB positions' in the belt without stations. and a single heavy freighter could set up a station with similar capabilities in a couple hours if not less. sure, it could get siege by an MCAP, then you could just set up another one the next day... fundamentally the limit is your resources.



1. the ccap can't reach a close position if the target is inside a belt, which it probably will be.
2. any appreciable corporation station will likely have an SZ of significant size, rendering it difficult to camp
3. similarly it will have more ships and resources to bring to the table than your ccap will
4. most importantly you're spending 5x the amount of effort to try to camp the station than grief you are causing the defenders. you are literally wasting enormous amounts of your own time VS just conducting a station attack. Even if you somehow keep up a constant camp they can all just pick an hour to log on and vaporize whoever you have camping then and go about their business. assuming they don't just laugh at you and go somewhere else, or are doing their cargo transshipment in CCAPs to begin with, which they probably would!


the main places you're going to see a lot of harassment around safezones are probably planet bases, since there's going to be many bases on a given planet.

to set up a station, from what details ive had with a dev, all you need is a foundation block. you set that down, you have a warp point for the civ ship. That alone just feels cheap, and empty. Also, you are assuming that these attacks would only be conducted on large stations. that would be suicide. the point is to attack when you believe you can win... if my cap ship has 300 men on it, and we are camping a station that has 1000, no. im not going to win no matter how much i camp, given the company keeps people logged on, and they know what they are doing.. before you act like an ass and start hollering "grief," our military does this exact same thing in their tactics, unless you are delta force, seal team 6, or a similar group of special forces in whatever country you live in, whatever they call their elite military personnel.

 

[Greebo]

This assumes the fight over an area is happening inside the belt to begin with. That's a big assumption. However, if that assumption is true and this battle *is* being fought somewhere in the belt, you're making some more assumptions about the proposed 30 CCAPs not being able to participate:

1. Whatever area is being fought over is far enough from the edge of the belt where we can't just easily fly in ships from N CCAPs sitting at that edge to reinforce. In this case, you cannot address or attack the root of your problem (our CCAP(s))
2. A dock can only host one ship at a time

Given a company with enough resources, I don't see how it's unlikely they have more than 1 CCAP barring some kind of messy in-company 1 ship rule, but then how do you handle a large alliance with many small companies? Maybe not quite 30 in the near future, but certainly multiple. The point is, CCAPs being 100% invulnerable and unable to be dislodged by any means is something that *will* be abused, especially for offensive purposes. It's not like the same rich company has the best armor and takes 5 shots per plate instead of 2 and with "good piloting" you can come out on top (counterplay available in this case), it's a mechanic that present situations where there is simply zero ability to counter what an enemy is doing. You can't remove your enemy's grasp on a forward position (maybe even in your front yard) as long as they have at least one CCAP sitting there staring at you. As long as CCAPs are invulnerable and can carry weapons of any type, produce them on-site, or serve as a carrier to offensive-capable ships, it's the obvious meta that the "competitive" crowd will look to exploit. They'll pop out and harass your miners, your haulers, whatever, with a quick flight time and a real possibility of them making it back inside the safety of their CCAP before you can even respond. Given enough time and enough resource aggregation, I'm not sure how you stop that since you can't attack them. And before someone says they can't warp into warzones (or areas under siege), warzones or stations under siege aren't the only place people will be invested in or want to fight over or control.

FB believes they can balance them and I look forward to being pleasantly surprised, I just think it's going to be migraine-inducing as long as you have the mixture of complete invulnerability, the ability to warp to most places (or close enough), and offensive capabilities no matter how much you try to nerf or limit said offensive capabilities. I was surprised when I read they could carry ships and players with weapons when I read the description about being a 100% safe civilian ship meant mainly for exploration.

I can't lookup the post at the moment, but the warzone range will be big enough that you'll need a 30 minute flight time per ship if you're coming from a ccap outside the warzone. I mean, yeah it's not insane, but an effective 30 minute respawn timer can really put a dampener on how effective of a that tactic is.

I can see the concern, but I don't think this will be very common. Maybe a troll tactic but I think it will be logistically annoying for serious assaults.

 

[Bestcoaster]

you need a dock, which is an explicit structure. you can't just use a foundation.

 

[J.D.]

you need a dock, you can't just use a foundation.

quotes?

 

[Greebo]

to set up a station, from what details ive had with a dev, all you need is a foundation block. you set that down, you have a warp point for the civ ship. That alone just feels cheap, and empty. Also, you are assuming that these attacks would only be conducted on large stations. that would be suicide. the point is to attack when you believe you can win... if my cap ship has 300 men on it, and we are camping a station that has 1000, no. im not going to win no matter how much i camp, given the company keeps people logged on, and they know what they are doing.. before you act like an ass and start hollering "grief," our military does this exact same thing in their tactics, unless you are delta force, seal team 6, or a similar group of special forces in whatever country you live in, whatever they call their elite military personnel.

No, the idea would be you'd have a warp point for the ccap if it had a cap dock to host it in the belt, which takes a lot more resources. I think that's also still a point of debate if that will be allowed

 

[Bestcoaster]

also lmao at 'it's not *griefing* it's *seal team 6*. totally irrelevant to game design.

 

[J.D.]

ok, maybe i missed a detail, or they changed some things. i had a conversation with Lauri about this some time back. And i was a little up set because of the issue where the block served as a warp point. im trying to find the quotes. maybe they changed it.

 

[J.D.]

also lmao at 'it's not *griefing* it's *seal team 6*. totally irrelevant to game design.

idgaf about the game design. the word grief is used to attack the morality of a certain play style, its manipulative, and means whatever the person wants it to mean. . its tactics dude, whenever you are placing that amount of resources into taking over a station, tactics are pretty vital if you care at all about your resources. which is why i compared to the military. you dont just throw dudes at a station hoping to win if you are outnumbered with little chance to win. thats wasting resources. I dont care anyway. there is no "griefing" outside the safe zone you can ***** all you want. ill just do it more. also, you got that butchered up impression of my quote totally wrong. went over you head.

 

[Greebo]

ok, maybe i missed a detail, or they changed some things. i had a conversation with Lauri about this some time back. And i was a little up set because of the issue where the block served as a warp point. im trying to find the quotes. maybe they changed it.

I feel like I remember what conversation you're talking about and I feel like there may have just been some miscommunication because it would be insane to allow it like that. I believe there was a mixup between using stations to warp around safely in the void vs using them to get into the belt. I don't think the devs would be that shortsighted.

Being able to return to a dock seems reasonable, repairs, upgrades, refueling.

 

[J.D.]

I feel like I remember what conversation you're talking about and I feel like there may have just been some miscommunication because it would be insane to allow it like that. I believe there was a mixup between using stations to warp around safely in the void vs using them to get into the belt. I don't think the devs would be that shortsighted.

Being able to return to a dock seems reasonable, repairs, upgrades, refueling.

thats exactly what i was thinking. so when i learned of this, i was shocked, and i even asked lauri about it to make sure i was understanding clearly. so im a bit confused.

 

[Vanidar]

I can't lookup the post at the moment, but the warzone range will be big enough that you'll need a 30 minute flight time per ship if you're coming from a ccap outside the warzone. I mean, yeah it's not insane, but an effective 30 minute respawn timer can really put a dampener on how effective of a that tactic is.

I can see the concern, but I don't think this will be very common. Maybe a troll tactic but I think it will be logistically annoying for serious assaults.

Warzones limiting the effectiveness of CCAP abuse doesn't really help enough. Warzones only exist in relation to periodic station sieges. When a siege is not active OR, and this is the more important part, the fight is happening over an area that doesn't even have the ability to be sieged (and thus create a warzone), that limitation is impossible. Warzones as a in-game mechanic are great on paper and seem to make sense since FB is taking the route that sieges are their preferred expression of "healthy pvp", but in reality, actual warzones will be the entirety of a border between two companies at war.

Probably my last post here on the topic since I'm finding I have to repeat myself far too often. It's rapidly devolving into a shouting match and it's wayyyy off topic. Just blows my mind that people can't see the issue with a invincible mobile FOB that can launch aggression.

 

[Greebo]

Warzones limiting the possibility for CCAP abuse is not a valid argument. Warzones only exist in relation to periodic station sieges. When a siege is not active OR, and this is the more important part, the fight is happening over an area that doesn't even have the ability to be sieged (and thus create a warzone), that limitation is impossible. Warzones as a in-game mechanic are great on paper and seem to make sense since FB is taking the route that sieges are de-facto expression of valid pvp, but in reality, actual warzones will be the entirety of a border between two companies at war.

Just blows my mind that people can't see the issue with a invincible mobile FOB that can launch aggression.

Probably my last post here on the topic since I'm finding I have to repeat myself far too often. It's rapidly devolving into a shouting match and it's wayyyy off topic.

I just think that the idea of it being effective at doing so is greatly overblown, time will tell, but I don't think it's as scary as some people are thinking it will be.

What are people going to do, spend tons of fuel to warp near as possible and then hours of their day flying through the belt to my invulnerable station where I can shoot them with general impunity or log off and waste all their time?

Sure, knock yourselves out.

 

[Vanidar]

I just think that the idea of it being effective at doing so is greatly overblown, time will tell, but I don't think it's as scary as some people are thinking it will be.

What are people going to do, spend tons of fuel to warp near as possible and then hours of their day flying through the belt to my invulnerable station where I can shoot them with general impunity or log off and waste all their time?

Sure, knock yourselves out.

You're assuming their target is your station AND that said station is within the belt. Again, having to repeat myself.

What happens when this contested area is some rich resources or some other POI without a station on it that a CCAP can park near? Is that still cool to you?

What about people with stations near the edge of the belt? Are stations expected to only be built in the deepest part of the belt to avoid the magically invulnerable civilian capital ship meant for exploring?

Even if it is harassing a station in the deepest part of the belt, I have a problem with not being able to counterattack that CCAP base of operations.

 

[Greebo]

You're assuming their target is your station AND that said station is within the belt. Again, having to repeat myself.

What happens when this contested area is some rich resources or some other POI without a station on it that a CCAP can park near? Is that still cool to you?

What threat could you offer a non belt station? There's almost no reason for anyone to leave it's borders if there's nothing to mine. Non belt stations are generally pointless.

Also you're assuming that high value pois are going to allow ccaps nearby, that would be a poor decision but is not currently the state of the game so it's moot

 

[Cavilier210]

I would like the stations to be able to lay claim to a sphere of space that is different than their safezone space. Like 20 km territory claim, and a 2 km SZ for instance.

 

[LauriFB]

Getting a navigational point for a capital ship requires just a ship to visit the place and save the coordinates to a navigational chip.

Civilian capitals can only enter belt if they are invited to a friendly capital ship dock, which is large enough and not reserved. Military capitals in other hand can siege stations as long as they just have coordinates for the station.

I would like the stations to be able to lay claim to a sphere of space that is different than their safezone space. Like 20 km territory claim, and a 2 km SZ for instance.

Station in fact already have a separate territory claim, which is much larger than the safe zone.

 

[Cavilier210]

Station in fact already have a separate territory claim, which is much larger than the safe zone.

Oh, how large is it? I tried to figure it out assuming it was 10, but then it seemed other peoples stations were within that bubble.

 

[LauriFB]

Oh, how large is it? I tried to figure it out assuming it was 10, but then it seemed other peoples stations were within that bubble.

I think safe zone is like 600m and the station claim area is around 2 km. These however are just the current values.