Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Katrina Oniseki on 02 Sep 2011, 01:51
-
Well with DUST 514 coming out... the concept of orbital bombardment has come to mind a lot for me. I don't mean in a gameplay sense either. I mean RP. Any of us should feasibly be able to point our guns at a planet and fire... but to what effect?
between the Xenocracy cheon and DAUST restrictions, it is clear that only battleship and larger (large and X-large) weapons are useful from orbit. Does anyone suggest maybe small and medium weapons could be too?
What sort of effects would these weapons have on a temporal world?
Railguns - pinpoint accuracy, variable damage, good strike platform
Blasters - viable? not sure, really. i dont think so.
Beams - very good platform, pinpoint accuracy, affected by weather.
Pulses - dont see much difference
Arties - pretty standard effects i would guess. less accurate probably.
Autos - probably not very accurate at all, good for carpet bombing
Cruise - seems like the ideal weapon for smart attacks, assuming you can wait for flight time
Torps - big ouch. probably more like a super nuke.
I would guess XL weapons are the real heavy hitters, with DD being world killers.
thoughts?
-
Ye olde chatsubo thread about orbital bombardment spawned by Theodicy. (http://www.eve-chatsubo.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1036)
Oh wait, that's not really helping is it.
Basically what you are doing is shooting at something through 10km of gas.
It will cause difficulty, since space ammo in all likelyhood is not designed aerodynamically, it's most likely designed for most damage in the space environment, it will most likely burn to cinder as it enters the atmosphere if it just doesn't skim off it.
That means that any projectile designed for space combat will be pretty much pointless when approaching orbital bombardment. All kinds of missiles count as projectiles.
Lasers will most likely be dispersed by atmospheric gases.
Most cost efficient way of orbital bombardment would be using big mass drivers that lob asteroids at the planet, even then the atmosphere would be the major problem with the whole thing. Causing inaccuracies and projectile disintegration.
The whole orbital bombardment as a capsuleer is pretty much pointless, you will never be able to choose the target you will be aiming at, the guy who chooses the target will be the DUST guy, making you nothing but a lackey with a big ship.
-
Hence why DUST bombardment will require a separate module, designed for the job.
Try not to overthink it, folks. 8)
-
Ye olde chatsubo thread about orbital bombardment spawned by Theodicy. (http://www.eve-chatsubo.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1036)
Oh wait, that's not really helping is it.
Basically what you are doing is shooting at something through 10km of gas.
It will cause difficulty, since space ammo in all likelyhood is not designed aerodynamically, it's most likely designed for most damage in the space environment, it will most likely burn to cinder as it enters the atmosphere if it just doesn't skim off it.
That means that any projectile designed for space combat will be pretty much pointless when approaching orbital bombardment. All kinds of missiles count as projectiles.
That's actually rather convenient, because then 'bombardment ammunition" can be introduced, and having that ammo would explain why we couldn't always shoot the planet.
-
The whole orbital bombardment as a capsuleer is pretty much pointless, you will never be able to choose the target you will be aiming at, the guy who chooses the target will be the DUST guy, making you nothing but a lackey with a big ship.
You kind of forget that there are two sides (of players) fighting. Which means that both want to use orbital strikes. Which means that there are probably two fleets in orbit. They probably have different intentions. Which could end in a battle in space.
In the end we have to wait for CCP to spill the details.
About the RP: I think it would use a separate module, or at least a separate type of ammo since a projectile entering an atmosphere will have to be vastly different than just something that's lobbed through space. (Add to that the "fun" Tritanium problem).
Also the earlier mentioned "10km of gases" are a bit of an understatement.
@Kiki Truzhari
I think there's some CONCORD regulations that make it impossible for capsuleer vessels to target certain things, like planets.
-
Hence why DUST bombardment will require a separate module, designed for the job.
Try not to overthink it, folks. 8)
Its just a big chunk of rock sent into a proper orbital insertion vector directed at the location you want, that cause currently you cannot "position" yourself on the side of the planet you want to bomb, the trajectory must be handled by the module.
-
Or rather, it is a maser that is designed to heat up an explosive power core at a particular installation. Delivery of a combustible or atomic payload via the atmosphere is not as practicable as the excitation of a concentrated reactive element by EM waves on the planet surface. This has the added interesting benefit of requiring the deployment of such an element by ground troops, though it is feasible that such a component would exist at a sci-fi future industrial installation.
Just sayin'.
-
Ye olde chatsubo thread about orbital bombardment spawned by Theodicy. (http://www.eve-chatsubo.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1036)
Oh wait, that's not really helping is it.
Basically what you are doing is shooting at something through 10km of gas.
It will cause difficulty, since space ammo in all likelyhood is not designed aerodynamically, it's most likely designed for most damage in the space environment, it will most likely burn to cinder as it enters the atmosphere if it just doesn't skim off it.
That means that any projectile designed for space combat will be pretty much pointless when approaching orbital bombardment. All kinds of missiles count as projectiles.
Lasers will most likely be dispersed by atmospheric gases.
Most cost efficient way of orbital bombardment would be using big mass drivers that lob asteroids at the planet, even then the atmosphere would be the major problem with the whole thing. Causing inaccuracies and projectile disintegration.
The whole orbital bombardment as a capsuleer is pretty much pointless, you will never be able to choose the target you will be aiming at, the guy who chooses the target will be the DUST guy, making you nothing but a lackey with a big ship.
Even today, bombarding a planet from orbit is a possibility, though it might well be a highly costly one.
Assemble a nuke. Or a Fuel bomb, if you want to be 'clean' about it. Or just a big collection of whatever explosive you wish to use. Assemble this in the center, perhaps a cylinder-shaped container, shielded from and separate from the rest fo the module. Now, deploy a rack of, for example - cruise missiles. Shield this rack just as the bomb in the center. Add another rack of cruise missiles/w.e around this one and repeat until you're satisfied with the amount of firepower or until the budget is to high or the target(s) are sure to be vaporized.
Set the entire thing on a heat-shield for planetary re-entry - if you can make it solid enough to get people and thier shuttles back down without burning to a fine misty smoke in the atmosphere since the 60's, you can shield this weapon. Assemble, attach to shuttle, launch to space, deploy on a station or whatever, ready to go. When needed drop to the earth in whatever angle or such needed to prevent burning up and hit whatever city/nation you want to remove from the map.
Send it down. Once beyond the part of the atmosphere that might burn it up, blow off the outher edges and fire the missiles in whatever way is most practical, guide these to whatever designated targets(s) they go to. Blow off the next layer and repeat. Try to have the core bomb fragment hit more-or-less on whatever you want to destroy and detonate it x meters over the surface to inflict maximum damage. Bonus points if you managed to design the heat-shield in a manner where it would turn into a gigantic, glorified frag-grenade when blown up, for even more destructive power.
If all else fails and it's not really possible to make this kind of weapon in today's world, wait 20-30 thousand years and make them en-masse in a universe that has the tech needed, and leaders cold enough to deploy them. Might even replace those explosive warheads with anti-matter bombs and/or place a really big one in the center. Distribute to enemies as needed, don't forget to paint "xoxo, your pal, [insert name]" on the front, for hilarity, or maximus cheese, depending on who asks...
Yes, I'm being overly sarcastic. IMHO once you figure out how to get space-faring objects/people back down without unfortunate fatal incidents or immolation due atmospheric re-entry, actually bombing a planet like this becomes a piece of cake. That or just drop a huge rock on them to kill the planet cheaply, if needed, though that's covered allready.
Ofc, I'm sure this was not exactly the topic here, likely more of "tony G did not do his homework - again" or somesuch.
-
I think the topic was more on the lines of 'are the space combat guns viable weaponry for orbital bombardment.
The consensus seemed to be 'No.'
-
Alright, to continue the question then... what sort of special ammunition could be employed on the various weapon types in EVE for a viable bombardment? Or are Mass Drivers really the only option available?
I mean... the EVE Forever video showed a dreadnought firing at a planet with Railguns. While that could just be :psyccp: or whatever.. it implies that Dreadnoughts can use XL Rails to respond to orbital strike requests. Maybe they didn't have the mass driver ready for the video, so they used rails.
I dunno. I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way it could work.
-
I'll make a longer post on this tomorrow, when I have more time, Katrina - but in short, that question depends on 3 major factors:
1, do you wish for it to be fired out of your warships' primary weapon systems or deployed in some other manner?
2, does collateral damage matter?
3, what kinds of defensive measures are in place to resist a possible bombardment?
-
Alright, to continue the question then... what sort of special ammunition could be employed on the various weapon types in EVE for a viable bombardment? Or are Mass Drivers really the only option available?
I mean... the EVE Forever video showed a dreadnought firing at a planet with Railguns. While that could just be :psyccp: or whatever.. it implies that Dreadnoughts can use XL Rails to respond to orbital strike requests. Maybe they didn't have the mass driver ready for the video, so they used rails.
I dunno. I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way it could work.
From my understanding a railgun is a 'mass driver' and I'm sure it's quite possible to manufacture railgun ammunition with good re-entry characteristics (some current ammunition might work okay too, not an expert) that can be fired from dreadnaught or even battleship guns.
Similarly missiles designed for atmospheric re-entry could conceivably be fired from existing launchers to strike with the same sort of precision we get these days out of missiles.
-
Unless you are bombarding a storm planet with huge atmospherical disturbances, I highly doubt that high velocity propelled projectiles (and railguns shoot projectiles too, so they are included) would see any difference when entering atmosphere. And even if they weirdly have difficulties, we can also think that targeting computers are competent enough to compute a good trajectory. Are they accurate enough ?
And for laser weaponry, is the focused beam of EM waves (photons and stuff) powerful enough to vaporize cloud layers ?
We are in SciFi settings with unprobable scenario already sciencey wise. You can find a lot of justifications if you really want it.
Though I like the bombardement special ammo idea.
-
An example (http://youtu.be/yvSTuLIjRm8) of what happens when a high velocity projectile hits a denser medium.
Meteors are pretty high velocity and made of some pretty tough stuff and they breakup and get smaller on entry.
The effectiveness of a laser weapon would decrease as it dissipates energy to the air around its path and also be refracted more as it reflects off the much higher particle count. That in itself might be a weapon as all space weapons become area of effect, some with multiple areas of different effect (like wind rushing in to fill the vacuum left by the laser's super-heating).
It is all very hard stuff. Space-to-Ground technology thus far as focused on returning valuable cargoes/weapons packages (nuclear weapons). To my knowledge, these all use a similar blunt-nose, heat shielded, leading section. From my understanding, hypothesized Tungsten Rods utilize an ablative leading point that pushes the air way from the control sections. Lastly, one of the biggest challenges faced by the Space-based Solar Power concept is the dissipation of energy in transfer to the ground station.
Eve however has never been a hard-science setting where it matters.
-
I think this might be one of those cases where we have to handwave the science behind it, and just figure that the technology in EVE is advanced enough to have figured out a way to solve the problems presented here.
-
I'll make a longer post on this tomorrow, when I have more time, Katrina - but in short, that question depends on 3 major factors:
1, do you wish for it to be fired out of your warships' primary weapon systems or deployed in some other manner?
Fired out of the warship's primary weapon systems, using the eight basic classes of weapons. Railgun/Blaster, Beam/Pulse, Arty/Auto, Cruise/Torp.
2, does collateral damage matter?
In certain weapon systems, I would expect it, like torpedoes. In others, I would more surgical strikes. In any case, the sheer size and power of the guns is going to make a very very big boom. I sorta expect collateral damage.
3, what kinds of defensive measures are in place to resist a possible bombardment?
I would expect some planets to have shield generators over domed cities or important buildings. Others would have reinforced underground bunkers. Most would at least have simple ground to air turret/missile emplacements to shoot down slower bombardment ordinance like missiles.
Also, assume this is taking place on a temperate world very much like Earth, or at the most exotic, a barren planet like Mars or Tatooine (Star Wars).
-
Alright, I'm back now and will try to answer the questions more fully. BEWARE: Theory-heavy walloftext post incoming!
Before I'd begin, I'd like to also say that I will be assuming that projectiles do not neccesarily resemble the little images we're given ingame. The reason is twofold: 1, technically, there is no reason why multiple projectiles from different empires designed to do different things should resemble each other perfectly for variously-colored bands, and 2, the blurbs given on some ammo descriptions suggest they shouldn't resemble each other at all. Mind you, I'm not saying that all ammo looks different from any other type, but that it doesn't have to look the same.
I'll make a longer post on this tomorrow, when I have more time, Katrina - but in short, that question depends on 3 major factors:
1, do you wish for it to be fired out of your warships' primary weapon systems or deployed in some other manner?
Fired out of the warship's primary weapon systems, using the eight basic classes of weapons. Railgun/Blaster, Beam/Pulse, Arty/Auto, Cruise/Torp.
The reason I ask is that, frankly, it makes little sense to tie up vital warships from actual fighting duties when you could drop a line of satellites bearing a single weapons system into low orbit, possibly similar to the sentry guns we often see. These would be picked up after the campaign or perhaps serviced from week to week if the campaign went on.
2, does collateral damage matter?
In certain weapon systems, I would expect it, like torpedoes. In others, I would more surgical strikes. In any case, the sheer size and power of the guns is going to make a very very big boom. I sorta expect collateral damage.
Actually, I was thinking more tactically than this - for instance, a Titanium Sabot shell, being a post-penatration detonating system, would be a very good low-collateral "bunker buster". A fusion round, on the other hand... well, even assuming it's a very-low-yield device, it's still a fusion warhead. Similarly, Antimatter L Charge could quite possibly be a city-clearer, while Tungsten L Charge would be a much "cleaner" round.
3, what kinds of defensive measures are in place to resist a possible bombardment?
I would expect some planets to have shield generators over domed cities or important buildings. Others would have reinforced underground bunkers. Most would at least have simple ground to air turret/missile emplacements to shoot down slower bombardment ordinance like missiles.
[/quote]
Alright, sidenote here - I consider the viability of point-defense and interception systems in the EVE-verse to be quite low, due to a number of factors including the utter failure of existing systems to shoot down even the biggest, slowest ordinance in EVE and my knowledge of some of the defense-suppression systems used in ICBM re-entry systems in real life.
That said, the other option (shields of any sort) is a double-edged sword. The Gallente recognized that simply burying their command center in solid diamond would only push the Caldari to either beat on it until it broke or build a weapon that could level it - so they built a city on top of it as well. In the absence of having a human shield that large over you, throwing up an armor or force field offers you direct physical protection but also encourages the enemy to go to town with the biggest, nastiest, most powerful guns they can drag over - at least until the shield is on the verge of collapse, if they even care about the human cost.
Also, assume this is taking place on a temperate world very much like Earth, or at the most exotic, a barren planet like Mars or Tatooine (Star Wars).
Fair enough.
Alright then, here are my thoughts...
Energy weapons are both blessed and cursed in terms of accuracy - on the one hand, you weapon travels at the speed of light, reducing targeting to something akin to point-and-click after atmospheric refraction is considered. On the down side, the atmosphere also means that your beam is going to spread out ("Bloom"), reducing its energy delivered to a single point. How much it does this would vary by planet - storm and plasma planets would practically come with free planetary shielding, while barren and to a lesser degree ice planets would be highly vulnerable. How much this would effect Battleship- or Dreadnought-class lasers is debatable; they certainly did a number on Starkman Prime and other worlds that bombardment was used on, but there is also much evidence that heavy collateral damage is an expected effect to even targeted bombardment, let alone a razing like Starkman Prime (not that the Amarr give a damn). Nonethless, Beam lasers would likely retain their role as high-accuracy, but limited-damage weapons.
I will also note that Lasers present an excellent first-strike weapon, as the ability to deploy into orbit and nearly instantly hit a target with a focused EMP - this being a secondary effect of laser-atmospheric interaction, especially if a Gamma crystal was used - would allow an attacking fleet to cripple defensive systems before a chance to respond could be had.
Hybrids are also struck with an interesting duality, but it's a bit different this time: Blasters would be utterly useless for actually projecting damage onto the surface, but they would make good defense-suppression weapons due to the EMP effect generated by shooting a ball of plasma into an atmosphere. Railguns, on the other hand, are iffier - they only fire at "hypersonic velocity", without guidance (note here that RL railguns are already firing guided projectiles at near-hypersonic velocities). As such, factors such as angle fired into the atmosphere at, atmospheric density and composition, and even wind would heavily effect accuracy. If the railgun round did hit, it would easily become a devastating projectile within a short distance (or longer, if it's fired with its Uranium/Plutonium/Antimatter payload...); furthermore, the inherent speed they are fired at could bypass point defenses by merit of simply being to fast to lock, engage, and destroy before it impacts. In short: Guidance needed, plx.
What they lack in muzzle velocity compared to hybrids, Projectiles more than make up for in sheer caliber. Unlike Hybrids, they don't have the sheer speed to dash in past point defenses, but there's plenty of room in the shell to carry decoys, ECM systems, or enough submunitions to make it impossible to off every warhead. Similarly, they don't have the sheer velocity to assist with staying on target, but unlike rails I can't find any indication that a Projectile round wouldn't carry some form of guidance. The difference between Autocannon and Artillery is fairly obvious here - ACs would fire a smaller caliber shell, with less room for stuff onboard, but they'd throw down more of them in a shorter time. Arties, bigger shells but not as often.
Finishing up with Torpedoes and Cruises, I'd simply treat them as an exaggerated version of Projectiles - bigger, slower, and a slower rate of fire - but man, plenty of room for submunitions, penatration aids, or even just a bigger bomb.
-
RAil guns vs Artillery :
I wouldn't have thought that the method of accelerating the projectile would make very much difference to the end result. I can't think of a good reason that the velocities of a rail gun couldn't be reached with suitable artillery - all it takes is enough propellant and a long enough barrel.
All the comments about final guidance and projectile type seem to me to be applicable to both rail-guns and artillery as well.
-
Alright, now part 2 - how to make 'em better for dropping on DUSTers.
Lasers' bigest issue remains with atmospheric blooming. Putting aside Tachyon beams (for all their potential as bombardment weapons, trying to science them out makes my head hurt), the next best option is to simply increase their ability to "bleed" energy and still do damage, and the best way to do that is to pump more energy into them or focus the beam into a narrower band. In otherwords, lasers need to become more laser-ey.
Hybrids are going to mostly end up being focused on railguns - blasters are kind of at a dead end with regard to breaking through atmosphere. So, Rails: 1, guidance. 2, variations in actual payload - i.e., instead of using standard Hybrid rounds, why not a solid Tungsten slug? 2, BLOODY GUIDANCE.
Projectiles, while terribly destructive if simply dropped onto a planet and detonated, may require tweaks to their guidance to become a precision weapons. Additionally, projectiles don't currently carry penatration aids such as decoys, ECM emitters, or submunitions in case you want to take out anything smaller than a city block.
Missiles also suffer from the "smallest warhead blows up a lot" issue. In addition to what I mentioned with projectiles, I'd also suggest a sort of "active minelaying" technology with missiles - they'd be launched into orbit and allowed to orbit; a fire support request from a ground team or a strategic bombardment from the fleet above could call down innumerable pre-launched missiles, which aside from utterly overwhelming an enemy defense grid would also be quite hard on morale for the bombarded.
"Day 37 of the Seige. Food and water still holding. We've contained them around the initial landing sites, but munitions are running low, and the Federal Navy Offi- OHGOD THE SKY IS FALLING MISSILES EVERYWHERE!"
--------
Addition: Ulphus, I was more extrapolating from Real Life there than looking at EVE-verse stuff there; i.e., for a size comparison, while 16"/50 cal naval gun that armed the last US battleships had a top muzzle velocity of around 820 m/s, a railgun being considered to arm upcoming US destroyer designs has a top muzzle velocity of nearly 5,800 m/s (for top speed comparisons, a modern high-velocity tank cannon has a muzzle velocity of around 1780 m/s).
Admittedly, this is flawed logic - I don't know how the inside of a New Eden railgun or artillery piece works, but I'm working with what I know about, and I've yet to see any evidence that projectiles in EVE attain similar muzzle velocities to coil- or rail-launched weapons.
-
I think a lot of what we see is oversimplified away from variation. For a game, EVE is incredibly complex... but compared to reality, not very much.
I think you had it spot on with the sentry drone bombardment things though... and the pre-launched missiles.
I'm taking notes of all of this here. Basically, I wanted to know if I could feasibly bring a battleship into orbit around a planet in RP and reasonably present a hostage situation. 'Do this or I level your city'. It was done in Xenocracy, but there was little information given. I was figuring to myself... would a Rokh with an eight strong broadside of 425s be as dangerous as we think? An Abby with a rack of Tachyons? A maelstrom with 1400s?
It's all speculation, but I wanted to make sure I asked around before threatening to bombard planets.
-
Honestly already in eve roles (and science) are flawed. Railguns are the guns with a quick reload and a low alpha, while artillery have huge alpha and low refire rate. This is totally absurd. By the very core laws of cinetics, any railgun will beat 100 times a conventionnal chimical artillery, because its not even a linear gain we are talking about, but a quadratic progression². And will probably takes longer to reload due to heat issues, much like lasers.
However, eve does the contrary, so...
An example (http://youtu.be/yvSTuLIjRm8) of what happens when a high velocity projectile hits a denser medium.
Meteors are pretty high velocity and made of some pretty tough stuff and they breakup and get smaller on entry.
The effectiveness of a laser weapon would decrease as it dissipates energy to the air around its path and also be refracted more as it reflects off the much higher particle count. That in itself might be a weapon as all space weapons become area of effect, some with multiple areas of different effect (like wind rushing in to fill the vacuum left by the laser's super-heating).
Concerning your video, I may be wrong but it seems to me highly speculative to compare water with atmosphere (thus, a liquid with a gas), added to the fact that the guy is not firing at a 90° angle (but more a 45° angle). Though im no ballistic expert so... /shrug
Meteors, this is true. Depends of their speed of entry and the material they are made of though. I am pretty sure it is another story with lean projectiles with a high density and penetration factor. I am not saying this could work, but I am saying that we jump a little too fast to conclusions to my opinion here.
For the laser weapon, you only take as granted that the weapon is not powerful enough. We do not know how much focus and power are injected into the beam, so much for dissipation (the beam just breaks through the cloud cover and blows up a big hole). As for refraction, probably, which would mean like Esna said a much larger impact and a loss of surgical strike capability. EDIT : I think refraction would not even be a real issue when you consider that your beam clears up its path through all the crap and clouds filling the atmosphere, making it in milliseconds a totally clear atmospherical milieu where you would only have to worry about the perfect and homogenous refraction between space and air. And as your lasers probably use only a very thin wavelenght, the refraction would be the same for all the beam components, which would mean it to remain coherent and not dissipating.
What I was trying to say is that unless we have physicists experts here that can bring us sciencey proofs if something is possible or not, I do not see the point of arguing over this.
-
What I was trying to say is that unless we have physicists experts here that can bring us sciencey proofs if something is possible or not, I do not see the point of arguing over this.
It really isn't important enough to me to figure out what happens to a 800mm artillery shell when it hits a denser medium (atmosphere compared to vacuum).
-
It really isn't important enough to me to figure out what happens to a 800mm artillery shell when it hits a denser medium (atmosphere compared to vacuum).
But the atmosphere is significantly less dense (by 3 orders of magnitude I think) than water, and that density won't be constant as it travels through the atmosphere. I think the main issue is ensuring that the round doesn't burn up completely on re-entry.
-
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2641/shoopm.jpg)
That is all.
-
Kala wins!
-
and THAT is why you don't literally warp to zero on a planet... while flying a titan.
-
A few in-character quotes:
"The initial volleys neutralized sixty-eight separate defense batteries while removing a mere ninety-eight thousand Minmatar from the viable worker stock. Praise unto God."
- Intercepted Amarr Navy transmission during orbital bombardment of "Eanna", Planet VI, The Hror System
and
Orbital bombardment is very accurate. The bombs always hit the ground.
-Gallentean Military Manual
So, as for DUST, assuming something new isn't introduced (including a retcon / explaining how they didn't really care a few hundred years ago), the orbital bombardment option is likely going to be the "oh shit" button. Of course, one way to balance that would be implementing cover, i.e. characters who are indoors are safe.
-
and THAT is why you don't literally warp to zero on a planet... while flying a titan.
Well, I do have a few bookmarks that are at the center of several planets. You don't bounce, but you can't see the planet either..
You can get them by simply warping to a customs office (starts closer than the planet warp in) and approaching the planet with an mwd. You'll hit the surface and go straight through :)
-
I hope they take orbital bombardment seriously. It shouldn't just be a pixely explosion effect on the battlefield. It should be able to dramatically alter the planet itself.
Light bombardment, say, from a battlecruiser? Surface structures wiped from the planet's face in their entirety (if unshielded), dozens of Dusties incinerated in moments. Sustained bombardment by 50 Dreads and a Titan? That should turn most classes of solid planets into burning slag/lava worlds that take a few weeks to cool back down to a 'barren' planet, becoming non-survivable to Dusties without the appropriate gear. To prevent *every* planet from being so irreversibly ruined, Dusties or Eve players could gain access to terraforming.
Such 'resurfacing' could bring richer mineral deposits or something, so that obliterating a planet's crust has its own intrinsic value. Multiple attack options therefore present themselves: when attacking an enemy planet, do you strive to keep infrastructure intact in order to assume command of it once the enemy is gone? Or do you scorch everything, defending forces included, and begin re-building the broken world once it stops glowing red?
-
I hope they take orbital bombardment seriously. It shouldn't just be a pixely explosion effect on the battlefield. It should be able to dramatically alter the planet itself.
Light bombardment, say, from a battlecruiser? Surface structures wiped from the planet's face in their entirety (if unshielded), dozens of Dusties incinerated in moments. Sustained bombardment by 50 Dreads and a Titan? That should turn most classes of solid planets into burning slag/lava worlds that take a few weeks to cool back down to a 'barren' planet, becoming non-survivable to Dusties without the appropriate gear. To prevent *every* planet from being so irreversibly ruined, Dusties or Eve players could gain access to terraforming.
Such 'resurfacing' could bring richer mineral deposits or something, so that obliterating a planet's crust has its own intrinsic value. Multiple attack options therefore present themselves: when attacking an enemy planet, do you strive to keep infrastructure intact in order to assume command of it once the enemy is gone? Or do you scorch everything, defending forces included, and begin re-building the broken world once it stops glowing red?
Please get a job with CCP.
-
The only drawback I see is that for those doing PI, planet changing would break a production chain pretty badly. If the same planet keeps changing all the time, that would be hella irritating. But the realism would be nice.
-
The only drawback I see is that for those doing PI, planet changing would break a production chain pretty badly. If the same planet keeps changing all the time, that would be hella irritating. But the realism would be nice.
If somebody bombarded your PI network, I think you'd be losing your chain anyways. the whole DUST thing is supposed to be directly related to PI in EVE.
-
Well, it would totally piss me off. I spent A LOT of time to set up PI lines and infrastructure, with the guarantee it would not be attackle by another player. If they introduce that afterwise, its totally dumb and irrespectful. If they wanted that to be possible, they should have done it in the first place so that people not willing to support that would just have stayed out of the idea and not invested in that.
I applaud the realism, but if someone does not like my little PI business on his planet and can bombard it whenever he likes (and me, his own PI)... Eventually, nobody will do PI anymore.
-
I'd like to imagine that CCP has enough sensibility to make PI structures a lot like POS stations (since they're essentially POS structures themselves.)
What I mean by that is this, let's say your PI structures come under attack by another player. After they got to a certain structural health, they would enter "reinforced" mode and become invulnerable for a period of about 36 hours.
This would give you time to organize a defense, repair, etcetera and save them from destruction. Obviously I don't have any idea how it's going to work, just stating a possibility.
-
Well, it would totally piss me off. I spent A LOT of time to set up PI lines and infrastructure, with the guarantee it would not be attackle by another player. If they introduce that afterwise, its totally dumb and irrespectful. If they wanted that to be possible, they should have done it in the first place so that people not willing to support that would just have stayed out of the idea and not invested in that.
I applaud the realism, but if someone does not like my little PI business on his planet and can bombard it whenever he likes (and me, his own PI)... Eventually, nobody will do PI anymore.
I was almost sure they told us PI would not be impervious to attack forever. It is right now because they haven't iterated on it like they said, but the whole idea of DUST is to conquer planets including PI. I think a good majority of Tyrranis devblog babbling was about how players will get to interact with other players' PI in the future, and not always in a nice way.
-
Well, it would totally piss me off. I spent A LOT of time to set up PI lines and infrastructure, with the guarantee it would not be attackle by another player. If they introduce that afterwise, its totally dumb and irrespectful. If they wanted that to be possible, they should have done it in the first place so that people not willing to support that would just have stayed out of the idea and not invested in that.
I applaud the realism, but if someone does not like my little PI business on his planet and can bombard it whenever he likes (and me, his own PI)... Eventually, nobody will do PI anymore.
So, get your corp &/or alliance and defend your planet(s) :yar:
-
So, get your corp &/or alliance and defend your planet(s) :yar:
It should be interesting to see how CCP buffs the economic or strategic value of PI. As it stands right now, I would not be throwing cash at Dusties or spaceships to defend my stuff. It seems like a huge hassle to arrange Dust players, allocate resources, and fight protracted and expensive battles for something with such negligible value (in most cases).
There's been a lot of talk about how we'll be fighting over planets, but not why. Those expensive and constant sovereignty battles boil down to holding on to assets like supercap production facilities, tech moons, sanctums, outposts. Tangible and very important concepts for us EVE players.
What would we be spending all this money on planet fights for? POS fuel? Some random goods that eventually lead to producing space deployables? It seems more likely that a defender would simply pack up and move the facilities elsewhere, rather than try to defend it.
I want to see some real VALUE in these planetary facilities, something that matters to us more than POS fuel. Whether it is production of some new T3 ships, or another ISK faucet (people always fight for ISK faucets), or something. Otherwise, we'll just end up with another FW thing where we fight for no real reward. Where the fighting is simply because of the fighting, with no real reason except 'because i don't want you to have it'. Except most of that exciting combat isn't done by us. It's done by people we're spending ISK on.
-
I'd like to imagine that CCP has enough sensibility to make PI structures a lot like POS stations (since they're essentially POS structures themselves.)
What I mean by that is this, let's say your PI structures come under attack by another player. After they got to a certain structural health, they would enter "reinforced" mode and become invulnerable for a period of about 36 hours.
This would give you time to organize a defense, repair, etcetera and save them from destruction. Obviously I don't have any idea how it's going to work, just stating a possibility.
Yes, your idea is good ofc, but it asks for people to be in corps and big entities.
Well, it would totally piss me off. I spent A LOT of time to set up PI lines and infrastructure, with the guarantee it would not be attackle by another player. If they introduce that afterwise, its totally dumb and irrespectful. If they wanted that to be possible, they should have done it in the first place so that people not willing to support that would just have stayed out of the idea and not invested in that.
I applaud the realism, but if someone does not like my little PI business on his planet and can bombard it whenever he likes (and me, his own PI)... Eventually, nobody will do PI anymore.
I was almost sure they told us PI would not be impervious to attack forever. It is right now because they haven't iterated on it like they said, but the whole idea of DUST is to conquer planets including PI. I think a good majority of Tyrranis devblog babbling was about how players will get to interact with other players' PI in the future, and not always in a nice way.
Well yes, but they did not stated it like that. It was very ambiguous and vague, and we almost understood it was going to concern mostly nullsec planets with sov wars.
Well, it would totally piss me off. I spent A LOT of time to set up PI lines and infrastructure, with the guarantee it would not be attackle by another player. If they introduce that afterwise, its totally dumb and irrespectful. If they wanted that to be possible, they should have done it in the first place so that people not willing to support that would just have stayed out of the idea and not invested in that.
I applaud the realism, but if someone does not like my little PI business on his planet and can bombard it whenever he likes (and me, his own PI)... Eventually, nobody will do PI anymore.
So, get your corp &/or alliance and defend your planet(s) :yar:
It can be realistic, but sure, lets favor blobs over everything... :/
-
Haven't they taken back that thing with PI being affected by Dust?
-
Wasn't Dust interactivity the reason for PI in the first place?
-
Wasn't Dust interactivity the reason for PI in the first place?
Yes.
-
I hope they take orbital bombardment seriously. It shouldn't just be a pixely explosion effect on the battlefield. It should be able to dramatically alter the planet itself.
Light bombardment, say, from a battlecruiser? Surface structures wiped from the planet's face in their entirety (if unshielded), dozens of Dusties incinerated in moments. Sustained bombardment by 50 Dreads and a Titan? That should turn most classes of solid planets into burning slag/lava worlds that take a few weeks to cool back down to a 'barren' planet, becoming non-survivable to Dusties without the appropriate gear. To prevent *every* planet from being so irreversibly ruined, Dusties or Eve players could gain access to terraforming.
Such 'resurfacing' could bring richer mineral deposits or something, so that obliterating a planet's crust has its own intrinsic value. Multiple attack options therefore present themselves: when attacking an enemy planet, do you strive to keep infrastructure intact in order to assume command of it once the enemy is gone? Or do you scorch everything, defending forces included, and begin re-building the broken world once it stops glowing red?
Please get a job with CCP.
If they wanted me, they'd have said so already.
-
I hope they take orbital bombardment seriously. It shouldn't just be a pixely explosion effect on the battlefield. It should be able to dramatically alter the planet itself.
Light bombardment, say, from a battlecruiser? Surface structures wiped from the planet's face in their entirety (if unshielded), dozens of Dusties incinerated in moments. Sustained bombardment by 50 Dreads and a Titan? That should turn most classes of solid planets into burning slag/lava worlds that take a few weeks to cool back down to a 'barren' planet, becoming non-survivable to Dusties without the appropriate gear. To prevent *every* planet from being so irreversibly ruined, Dusties or Eve players could gain access to terraforming.
Such 'resurfacing' could bring richer mineral deposits or something, so that obliterating a planet's crust has its own intrinsic value. Multiple attack options therefore present themselves: when attacking an enemy planet, do you strive to keep infrastructure intact in order to assume command of it once the enemy is gone? Or do you scorch everything, defending forces included, and begin re-building the broken world once it stops glowing red?
Please get a job with CCP.
If they wanted me, they'd have said so already.
I can't say I blame them for not wanting to hire you. You'd pod Hilmar and make off with everything in the offices in both countries.
-
Lemme just... attach these 8 tractor beams from my Noctis... onto that there large Veldspar asteroid... lemme drag it into warp...
...and lemme slingshot it into the planet's face :twisted:
On another note, I hope the explody ships above a planet would be visualised to the Dust players :P
-
I can't say I blame them for not wanting to hire you. You'd pod Hilmar and make off with everything in the offices in both countries.
Three countries. Not counting their sekrit moon base.
-
CCP has offices in Iceland (Reykjavik), USA (Atlanta?), UK (Newcastle) and China (Shanghai). In addition Tranquility is located in London. EVE-China is not run by CCP, though.
-
EVE-China is not run by CCP, though.
Of course not! It's run by the government! (and/or Ruskies/goons)