Comments on: “Wow, that new thing is so shiny!!!”

By: Kragg Malak

Kragg Malak — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:28:46 +0000

+5.0 us the limit of sec status. No one has a +5.0 exactly, though some are so close it displays as such after rounding. Further, using the "police" module even once would take your +5.0 (after rounding) away.

I'd say remove the sec status requirements for both the police and pirate module. Furthermore, a titan can jump within 10 minutes of doomsdaying. GCC doesn't prevent jumping at all, just the 1 minute after aggression.

I'd remove the jump lockout, as jumpgates are not related to sentry guns. I'd just have the sentries shoot you if you fail.

Lastly, changing the sec status wouldn't work. Systems already have a sec status that is more digits than just .4 or whatever. A .4 system might be a .35 system true-sec, but, again, rounding applies and the reuls are set based on the after-rounding number. If a .4 dropped to .3, you could anchor moon-mining POSses, anchor POSses without starbase charters, and assign fighters. All these would be bad.

So, while info about the guns offline would be nice, the actual sec status of the system should not change.

By: hot sauce

hot sauce — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:53:42 +0000

no…..

By: Galen

Galen — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:08:29 +0000

The more I think about it, the more I agree as well. 30 minutes seems fair.

By: CrazyKinux

CrazyKinux — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:59:33 +0000

A brilliant idea indeed, but I agree with TheNudeNerd and think that that jump restriction should be cut in half.

By: Galen

Galen — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:37:02 +0000

Bribe them….hmmm……

By: Galen

Galen — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:36:40 +0000

I thought about the jump limitation for a long time. The 60 minute restriction only applies to the gate whose sentries you tried to hack. You have to admit, it's a pretty big reward if you are successful, the risk should be equally dangerous.

By: Mynxee

Mynxee — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:28:32 +0000

That is a pretty fascinating and well-thought out idea. I can imagine there would be folks who'd go around spending all their time "maintaining" gate sentry guns in advance of fleets rolling through. Not sure I agree with the 60 minute jump limitation….15 minutes (same as a GCC) would seem to be appropriate. What was the strategic thought behind the 60-minute limit?

By: Wensley

Wensley — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:34:05 +0000

Not getting shot at by sentry guns would definitely make a refreshing change. It might be cool if we could bribe them rather than hack them. The more secure the system the more it would cost to bribe and the bigger the bribe the longer they'd be offline. That way if you saw a juicy freighter coming in you could try and bribe the guns long enough to get a tackle while your corp fetched reinforcements.

By: TheNudeNerd

TheNudeNerd — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:59:27 +0000

I really think this is a great idea! Though 60 minutes of not being able to jump through a gate seems a little too much, but otherwise a neat and innovative idea. Great job!

By: mandrill

mandrill — Tue, 26 May 2009 09:41:20 +0000

Ooh, I like this.

A minor niggle though:
You say that hacking a sentry is an act of aggression, and as things currently stand activating your codebreaker module on a sentry gun would immediately flag you as an agressor, causing all the guns to fire on you. This would negate the hacking attempt and you'd have to start all over again, but in 7 hours time as the sentries would be unhackable for this period. This effectively makes the guns unhackable, unless the codebreaker module does not actually flag you as an agressor when activated, but only on a failed attempt.

Also, would it be possible to 'man the guns' as it were, as with a POS, as long as you had the relevant skills? Possibly with greatly reduced effectiveness?