Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
140
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 11:54:45 -
[121] - Quote
Styphon the Black wrote:5 people should be able to use guerrilla warfare tactics in a system with 50 enemy players. If 50 players can't figure out how to defend, escort, gate camp and just bait the five hostiles in their system that it on them.
I think we can all agree that nullsec should be dangerous. But reasonably so and that's where the problems start for the hunters and the residents.
The Hunters obviously want a system where they can get in and out, kill a few people and leave. Currently there is no way to stop this, the only tools we have to our disposal are local chat intel and bubbles.
Forming fleets is never fast enough to catch someone when they enter home space and we have absolutely no tools available to fight someone in home space, if they don't want to. None. There is nothing you can do as a defender to force a fight. There are enough examples of MWD fit faction ships that are effectively combate scan immune because scan+warp time allows them to warp somewhere else or just burn 100km+.
Camp the gates? All of them? For how long? Hours, Days? Bubble everything? Babysit everything? This is simply not feasible. This is the exact kind of weaponisation of boredom the new sov is intended to remove.
Observation Arrays could be the tools to force fights. That's all I want from them, really.
Is it too much to ask that when you come to my home, kill my friends and **** on my rug so to speak, that I get the chance to fight you?
The UI is still bad.
|
Vixel
Sky Fighters
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:04:10 -
[122] - Quote
Sean Parisi wrote:OBSERVATORY ARRAYS
- Allow observatory arrays to help pinpoint specific wormhole types / levels. This could be used with build able ammunition 'probes' which are sent to these sites and then lost - this does not translate over to regular anomaly's (players must scan)
- Logs of current owned or npc owned gates (delayed on NPC) within the network providing any assortment of information such as Ship Size, Ship, Player, Security Status of Player, Standing of Player and any other variation.
- Within the grid and slightly outside the grid it will be possible to find further intel into who is supplying goods to market (Allowing us to find out who's selling what and even possibly to who). This allows us to curtail the movement of supplies and even make informed 'ganks' on sellers of high valuable goods.
- Bounty and Kill Right Tracker. This will provide you with a list of people within grid and slightly outside it whom have killrights or bounties on them. Based on the strength of the network it will tell you where these people are allowing you to hunt them down more effectively.
- Null now has a default delay to local - Observatories can be used to increase or decrease the delay within occupied systems. But never leading to completely instant local updates (10-20 seconds at least of wait). Making local fill faster or slower. However, intel will always be there via network operators.
- Scan areas within network for recent kills and losses
- During grids lifespan allow it to slowly develop a mineral composition of all moons within the area.
- Increase rare ore spawn rates or even ice spawns
- Allow the networks to be hacked by outsiders to gain temporary benefit or cause general fuckery and mayhem. Can be counter hacked.
- Allow all services to possibly be bought by other players.
GATES
- Toll designations on gate use.
- Gates may limit size of ships passing through them
- Gates may be turned off while online - IE defenses still work but no jumps at all are allowed
- Can be hacked by outsiders to bypass toll / steal some toll or ignore restrictions
- Can be given modules to increase its strength against hackers (Operators can counter through headquarters counter hacking - IE Minigame vs hacking player that may temporarily disable their ship or other goodies)
- Public Beacon or Hidden. When hidden it has to be scanned down or bookmarked - 'smugglers gate' vs 'public gate'
ACCELERATION GATES Create dead pockets that player stations can be hidden behind. .
I quoted the ideas I thought were interesting. A couple of things though.
- Bounty and kill rights need to be looked at, something just seems, off about them... - Delayed local is cool, but how about getting rid of local entirely and instead just using a counter in the corner of the screen to indicate total player count in the system? (Make the information you gain from local currently, such as corporation, pilot age, friends/allies, name, etc, something you have to work for instead of something that's just freely given away) - Allowing the networks to be hacked/counter hacked is just more unnecessary meta... (ENTOSIS LINKS will be better) - Toll on gates between systems that would be otherwise unreachable without those gates in the current universe (not jove space or WH space) = bad... Do not allow a gate that already exists [HED-GP ---> XXX:XX for example] to be controlled and taxed by players. THIS WILL KILL ROAMING GANGS. - Modular structures are such a great idea
MY FAVORITE: DEADSPACE POCKETS - PLEASE CCP, let us do this. I want more content that is in the middle of nowhere in space instead of around planets or moons, stuff I have to 'HUNT" for. (change dscan mechanics and this becomes much more feasbible)
LVXE
|
zar dada
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:35:42 -
[123] - Quote
Can my corporation prevent personal/out of corp structures in a system? Using some kind of module? Or observatory structure?
KB
fcftw.org
|
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
666
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:52:41 -
[124] - Quote
Vixel wrote:
I quoted the ideas I thought were interesting. A couple of things though.
- Bounty and kill rights need to be looked at, something just seems, off about them... - Delayed local is cool, but how about getting rid of local entirely and instead just using a counter in the corner of the screen to indicate total player count in the system? (Make the information you gain from local currently, such as corporation, pilot age, friends/allies, name, etc, something you have to work for instead of something that's just freely given away) - Allowing the networks to be hacked/counter hacked is just more unnecessary meta... (ENTOSIS LINKS will be better) - Toll on gates between systems that would be otherwise unreachable without those gates in the current universe (not jove space or WH space) = bad... Do not allow a gate that already exists [HED-GP ---> XXX:XX for example] to be controlled and taxed by players. THIS WILL KILL ROAMING GANGS. - Modular structures are such a great idea
MY FAVORITE: DEADSPACE POCKETS - PLEASE CCP, let us do this. I want more content that is in the middle of nowhere in space instead of around planets or moons, stuff I have to 'HUNT" for. (change dscan mechanics and this becomes much more feasbible)
Well the assumption is that we would have public gates and then we would have built gates for newer released territory or as "secondary" pathways to the current system. So in the current world I think the tolling would be fine - but when the colonizing happens and we are building everything in new parts of space, then I can see where the issue arises.
In regards to the hacking, I see it as less of a way to take over or destroy assets. But more so manipulate them. You build a whole network of gates, intelligence and you want that to yourself. Provide a reason to hack these modules and bypass restrictions placed forward by other players. This allows for a more dynamic interaction - allowing players to restrict and players to bypass. This wouldn't apply to other aspects such as actual docking rights or arrays.
However, I do not believe in limiting the intelligence currently provided by the map. As many people use that not to get blasted to hell by gate camps. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
579
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:54:29 -
[125] - Quote
okay some constructive feedback...
Quote:Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like:
- Tampering with Star Map filters
the current starmap statistic filters are listed here: http://i.imgur.com/8eiLQls.png?2
Of those the most widly used in the intel community are: Cyno fields ships destroyed in the last hour ships in space in the past 30 minutes
In that order. The issue with these stats are that they're cached in set specific intervals so you're never sure that the data you're seeing refers to the time frame specified, as the language used hints at using you as a marker for a time frame, where in fact you're not.
Other out of game websites store and analyse this kind of data to provide clearer more meaningful intelligence for the general Eve Public then the data in the client in its current form gives. So logically its the preferred choice.
Due to the fact 'pilots in space in the last 30 minutes' is a dubious and inaccurate form of intel it is only rarely used as a tool to scout ships through hostile systems. Even then id say the majority of those end badly, and is why scouting yourself, or having someone scout +1 jump from you is the preferred method.
Therefore it stands to reason that playing around with these metrics will have little impact on how people conduct themselves in game. They will still use out of game website that store correlate and nit together data to form solid intel, they wil still +1 scout themselves or others, etcetera.
D-scan disruption is already a thing with the mobile scan inhibitor, but unfortunately the deployable itself is not dscan proof and therefore totally nullifies the entire point that the deployable is attempting to achieve - fixing this should be the easiest and best thing to do. Hiding a d-scan disruption in a service slot in a L size structure helps but allowing it to extend dscan disruption to the entire system i believe is too powerful, possibly AU range from the structure yes, but not system wide.
i do however believe d-scan should be disrupted by line of sight celestial obstructions eg planets / moons to create tactical elements of being able to hide your ship behind the mass of a planet.
Quote:
- ship intelligence disruption
by this i imagine you mean targeted ship intelligence eg cargo and ship scanners (including capacitor levels) and potentially killmail accuracy? its quite vague and to be honest, cargo and ship scanners are not often used unless you're delving into cap warfare or ganking on gates in highsec.
i would like to see killmail accuracy be reduced significantly however. But not based on a service slot upgrade. Instead overall, so for example killmails to only show dropped items and aggressing pilots. Pod killmails stay the same as the body drops and the implants (although mangled beyond use) are still in the dead capsuleers head.
Quote:
- player tracking capabilities
The current system for player tracking is awkward to get into, and to some extend does provide a barrier of entry to stop it from becoming overused, but because the mechanic has remained static for so long many player groups have gamed it to the point they have a plethora of players that can log an alt in and run a high level locator agent.
The accuracy and speed is okay for tracking capitals and supercapitals but for pilots in subcaps its too slow, something i think is good for balance. However tieing a disruptive element to it based on the standings of the player being tracked would be an interesting and logical addition. asking an agent of gallente navy to find someone with higher standing to the gallente navy shouldnt return great results.
Also installing locator agents in XL structures makes the whole process less convoluted in an area that to be honest the barrier of entry is gone regardless. Theres a lot of other nuances about this that can be explored, including but not limited to NPC pirate tag payment, faction standing for NPC pirate tags and vice versa, addition disruptive effects based on bribes...
Quote:
- being able to pinpoint cloak users
This i believe is too far, or if done intelligently can maybe be on the very edge of being a balanced system. Personally ive lived and fought in sovereign nullsec for the majority of my eve life, i've recently been a victim of the dreaded afk cloaky camping mechanic and ive followed the discussion about afk camping in the forums. My honest opinion of cloaking is it is not broken or overpowered. the overpowered mechanic is an associated mechanic used in conjunction with cloaking that has given cloaking a bad rep. that mechanic is cynos. Specifically covert cynos, and the ability for black ops battleships to open bridges in the safety of the docking range of a station.
the only way i can see a mechanic of cloaked ship detection being not overpowered is to have a moderately long spool up time (say 30 minutes) and a long cool down timer (say 1 hour and 30 minutes) where the structure or service creates a new probable signature in space that can be warped to once probed, and indicates the location of the cloaked ship when the structure or service was initiated, meaning the artificially created sig indicates where the cloaked ship was 30 minutes ago. if the ship is actually afk but traveling cloaked, sov holders can connect the dots so-to-speak and determine a direction the cloaked ship is heading. |
Ariete
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
23
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:11:04 -
[126] - Quote
The Gates and Observation Arrays do have some good ideas but i think some functions would fundamentally break game play in wormholes.
Observation Arrays been able to pin point cloaked players. One of the reasons why wormhole exists is the fact that you can't see who is looking at you due to no local, been able to see cloaked ships would break this. This is one of the risk's of living in a wormhole and would unbalance this.
Gates would also break a fundamental game play in wormholes. Using a Gate to control, make and collapse wormhole again takes a large amount of risk away from living in wormholes. The vast majority of wormhole players that i talked to at Fanfest DO NOT want this to happen.
On to the good things
Using Observation Arrays to boost D-Scan and Probe Scanning if you are with in range of of the array is a good idea. Using them so you can see intel about know space while been in wormhole space ie seeing where corp members are on you map is a real good idea.
Using Gates to boost warp speeds, speed and agility in your system is quite useful, in some cases using them to slow things down would be nice.
Vote Ariete for CSM X
|
Pesadel0
the muppets Void..
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:18:33 -
[127] - Quote
So you dont want or are going away from the auto shoting AI of POS to favor of AI of sentry guns and NPC protecting Null assets?
Does not compute. |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:44:39 -
[128] - Quote
SpaceSaft wrote: On the other hand, I've had the problem on multiple occasions that random gank fleets, 5 ppl or less are just uncatchable by 50 ppl +, just by bouncing safe spots and waiting out the safe log off timer.
It's also very, very wrong that the owning side can't force a fight eventually.
No this is not wrong. If you would be able to force a fight, those 5 people can't come into null anymore. Because they would be guaranteed to be killed. And would you fly into guranteed death? This would stop small groups from being able to go into null sec. So you would have to join a larger group. And this exactly what is the problem now. That the larger coalitions rule everything.
Beeing able to avoid being catched is ESSENTIAL for the Game if you want small groups to survive.
People always say that corporations in EVE are dictatorships. But look at it that way: Everyone if free to leave the corporation. So you can choose your leadership by choosing the corporation. This forces the leadership to look after their members. Because they can always choose to leave which equals to vote someone out of the office. So corporations in eve are truly democracys.
But if you have no choice other than staying in that corporation because you can't survive as a small group or single player you make the corporations true dictatorships. And noone likes to live in a dictatorship and you would rather leave the game. |
Ariete
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
24
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:48:28 -
[129] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:So you dont want or are going away from the auto shoting AI of POS to favor of AI of sentry guns and NPC protecting Null assets?
Does not compute.
The Devs are removing the AI for pos guns etc in the new structures. You will have to take control of the pos or defend them, use it or lose it.
Vote Ariete for CSM X
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:51:09 -
[130] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:These player built gates can be traversed by everyone without the need of payment, but they can be fitted with gateguns and other mods (like having a small gate cover a greater distance than it is supposed to cover with some mods and giving Jump fatigue because of that, while a proper size gate wouldn't give you any fatigue).
This is a great idea - jump fatigue for too large jumps...
handige harrie wrote:The Shotgun into another area of space idea is somewhat nice, as long as it is coupled to the same range of a JB or something. Else it would make moving around large distances really simple. If it's implemented like it's stated there it wayy to easily exploited for simple travelling opportunities. (Travelling from deep nullsec to empire, just blasting yourself near Jita or Amarr. Logging off for the night after your done with your business so you can shoot yourself back again the next day)
But if you have player built gates you would need something like that to make travelling easier again. Beacue then player can create bottlenecks. So this would balance out.
Maybe say that this shotgun type always causes fatigue and costs fuel. While fixed gates only cause fatigue if used the wrong way (too large distance) and don't cost any fuel - maybe they use their capactior for that. This would also explain the traffic control if too many try to jump through a gate. The gate is out of capacitor then. |
|
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
140
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:58:02 -
[131] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:SpaceSaft wrote:It's also very, very wrong that the owning side can't force a fight eventually. No this is not wrong. If you would be able to force a fight, those 5 people can't come into null anymore. Because they would be guaranteed to be killed. And would you fly into guranteed death? Beeing able to avoid being catched is ESSENTIAL for the Game if you want small groups to survive.
Do you even read my posts?
I agree with this. I'm not advocating for a magical wonderweapon that blapps you the moment you enter a system.
I'm advocating for something that if you sit in space you don't own for literally hours, you should be catchable. That doesn't even mean you're going to lose the fight, that doesn't mean you're going to lose your ship.
It just means that if you're stupid enough to go to hostile space and stick around the hostile should have a chance to fight back.
The UI is still bad.
|
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari Northern Associates.
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:06:04 -
[132] - Quote
I thought of a module while reading this, that could maybe add even more interesting gameplay. Some sort of hacking module that could steal / deny features of various structures.
Maybe call it the 'Covert' Entosis Link.
An idea could be to tie delayed local chat to the Observatory Array and let the hacking module effect this.
I made my own post for this in the features and ideas subforum. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
580
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:22:04 -
[133] - Quote
Cpt Patrick Archer wrote:I thought of a module while reading this, that could maybe add even more interesting gameplay. Some sort of hacking module that could steal / deny features of various structures. Maybe call it the 'Covert' Entosis Link. An idea could be to tie delayed local chat to the Observatory Array and let the hacking module effect this. I made my own post for this in the features and ideas subforum.
i had a similar thought on this and your linked proposal is interesting, however somewhat overpowered to the hostiles (especially the temp offlining of a gate part)
im always cautious of writing a big wall of text piece explaining ideas i have that would be cool in eve because of the discouraging aspects of reading a ton of stuff.
constructive feedback is a different matter as i see that as directed purely at devs who do take the time to read the feedback threads thoroughly.
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:33:10 -
[134] - Quote
SpaceSaft wrote:if you sit in space you don't own for literally hours, you should be catchable.
You never used combat probes did you? And if you talk about covert ops ships - well that's what is special about them. They are able to sit in space and hide. Because of that they are COVERT ops. |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:44:05 -
[135] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:Sayod Physulem wrote: - ShortRange: You fit a lot of Scan resoultion modules and a cloak detecting module. You would be able to warp to everything within the starting 5 AU Range. Even cloaked ships!
NO, this is an utterly terrible idea! No structure should provide a direct non-consensual warp in mechanic on arbitrary ships. This is what the damn combat probes and scanning skills are for after all!
First it is not arbitrary. You can only warp to things that are in range of the array. And you can avoid a 5AU sphere. If you are in a larger ship than a frigate the sphere you would have to avoid would be larger (since your signature would be bigger). But you still can avoid it. Also if you warp to something cloaked you don't know where you warp to. You only know the signature size.
But the real problem with your "argument" is, that it is not even an argument. Saying it should not be in a certain way is no reason just an opinion.
Banko Mato wrote:Jason Dunham wrote:So if a structure is allowed to affect cloakies in system I suggest it operate by putting a timer on cloaks. The structure would emit interference that would build up, eventually breaking the cloak of any ship in system. Once that occurs, an active pilot can simply re-cloak, while those not actively playing would be vulnerable to probing down like they should be. This effect should show up as soon as you enter in system, letting any pilots know that they will have to pay attention to their cloak. I'd suggest that the timer be set to occupancy bonuses, with values of 60/30/15 minutes possible. This timer would start on cloak activation for each individual ship. Starting on from this much more feasible idea i would propose the following: Introduce Cloak Dissolution as a new mechanic that comes with every cloaking devise. Once a cloaking device gets active, it starts accumulating cloak dissolution (either visualize it as another circle around the module or as a "timer" icon in the upper left screen corner that starts to fill up) at a fixed base rate per minute. Once a critical value of cloak dissolution is reached, the cloak deactivates and starts its cooldown phase. The actual accumulation rate and critical limit can be influenced by ship bonus (like e.g. 33% less rate for covops or 100% more limit for recons, etc...) and by the cloaking skill (like -10% per level to make it meaningful). Interaction with the new OA structure could then work like active sonar pings that incur additional cloak dissolution on any ship either in range or system wide (maybe depending on size of the OA or rigs/services/whatsoever) and with a varying intervals and dissolution strength (again depending on configuration/size). However, there need to be certain constraints like say no overlapping areas of effect for non system wide OAs and at most one system wide OA with this "sonar" effect. Furthermore I imagine a few rough limits on the amount of time it takes such a system to decloak a freshly cloaked ship by means of cloak dissolution:
- no combination of effects should be able to force a decloak on a covops at max level in less than 30 minutes
- no covops ship should be able to stay cloaked longer than 3 hours at max level
- regular ships without inherent cloaking bonuses should not be able to stay cloaked very long (maybe something below 1 hour)
I think this mechanic is exactly what could solve the "afk cloaking" disaster. For every active pilot it should be trivially easy to watch his or her cloak dissolution level and either recloak after a forced decloak or simply reset the timer at a save or when in warp in deep space. An actual afk-cloaker on the other hand will be subject to being probed down as soon as his cloak dissolution level reaches the critical point and forces him to decloak. A win for everyone complaining about current cloak mechanics ;)
I don't have a problem with current cloak mechanics and a lot of people don't. And since the people that don't like the mechanics are sov owners and ccp wants to nerf large sov coalitions ... If you they are consequent they shouldn't help them to be more safe.
My proposed system detects you if you get too close to an Observation array that can detect cloaked ships. So you can use these Observation arrays as protection. But a cloaked person could still sit in the system as long as they please as long as they stay away from your arrays. If you want to get into this zone you have to carfully deactivate them one after the other. If you succeed you have the advantage of suprise and can hot drop or gank someone. If you fail - you get detected and have to get out as fast as possible - since the OAs provide warp-ins (if they have enough scan res). Place OAs near your ratting space and you get a warning. The OAs could even warn everyone in the corporation about the detection and send a message. You wouldn't even have to check d-scan or local then.
But as a cloaked person you still have the abilitys to circumvent these arrays. I don't know what your problem with that is... |
Rayzilla Zaraki
Tandokuno
286
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:48:06 -
[136] - Quote
I'm really pretty bummed seeing all the ideas of the OAs being able to emit a pulse to decloak or absolutely pinpoint a cloaked ship or even cause there to be some sort of time limit for cloaks. This is total easy button game play.
These structures should assist active players, not do the work for passive players.
CCP Ytterbium used the phrase "pinpoint cloaked users". I think this is the wrong direction. The phrase indicates a passive, easy button way to find cloakys.
What the OAs should do relative to cloakys, is enhance activities like combat probing. With a network of OAs in place, cloakys can show up on combat scanners with tight resolution (no more than 8AU?). This lets the probing player know there's a cloaky and, if the cloaky is just sitting in one place, he'll be easily probed down. If he is active and moving around it will be a much harder endeavor to find him. This encourages active game play.
I see this as a hybrid of submarine warfare and stealth technology. Submarine warfare has sonar pickets which can be picked up by submarines and possibly avoided - their sonar gives them and their strength away. A submarine actively pinging for another submarine finds the other sub but at the expense of giving away its presence and even location. In place of simply picking up the ping, the cloaky would have to have be checking D-Scan for combat probes. This might require a module or rig that increases D-Scan's distance or, a module for CovOps ships that picks up on the pings of the OAs and/or the combat probes (if within a certain radius, I'd think).
For the stealth technology part, todays stealth fighters are designed so that radar systems are less effective against them. They essentially reduce the detection radius of the radar. A cloak can work similarly. A good cloak (high skill, good equipment, ship and rigs) could only be detectable within, say, 2AU of a properly equipped OA (as opposed to 20+AU for an uncloaked ship). This provides the ability for an active and smart cloaked player to fly between the pickets set up in a network of OAs. The approximate radius of the OAs would be known to the cloaky but the margin of error would be enough that mistakenly going into the radius is possible.
The most I could see an OA (or network of OAs) doing is emitting a pulse that makes the cloaky show up visually and on overview (if on-grid) for a second or two. Give that one a looooong cool down. The idea would be that the hunter scans down the cloaky's area, warps on-grid (probably cloaked himself) and orders the OA(s) to emit the decloak pulse. The cloaky shimmers visually and pops up on overview for a second or two and re-cloaks on its own (the cloaky doesn't have to hit the cloak module or wait for the cool down since the pulse doesn't turn it off, just disrupts the cloaking field), if the hunting player is quick with a quick-locking ship, then he can lock and shoot (or whatever).
If players want general protection of the system, they'd post OAs in a wide spread (again, just like scan probes set to, say, 32 to 64 AU)). If they want much better protection, they'd put a tighter spread around the asset they want to protect (<1 AU) thus making the job of actively scanning for cloakys in that area easier (but still give the clever cloaky a chance of getting through).
Or something like that...
Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
|
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 14:58:52 -
[137] - Quote
I should probably add - since we are talking about piloting around these OAs. We would need manual piloting on a solar system wide scale. So being able to warp to a point in the solar system you click.
I mean since those arrays would pretty much act as colliders on grid. You need to avoid coming closer than 2km to something on grid and you would need to avoid coming closer to a OA closer than their scan range in the solar system. You really need manual piloting for that.
EDIT: of course you still wouldn't be able to cancel warp |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
581
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 15:01:32 -
[138] - Quote
Sayod Physulem wrote:
I don't have a problem with current cloak mechanics and a lot of people don't. And since the people that don't like the mechanics are sov owners and ccp wants to nerf large sov coalitions ... If you they are consequent they shouldn't help them to be more safe.
im in a sov holding player org in a large coalition and have been subject to pizzas cloaky camping campaigns before and we have weathered it where others haven't.
The problem is not the mechanics of cloaking, its the mechanics of covert cynos in conjunction with cloaks.
ive never had issues with the cloak and its effects on a hostile in a system we have sov in, its the instant backup they can bring in in a split second, and the relative safety that backup enjoys from the undock of npc stations. |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 15:27:56 -
[139] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:Sayod Physulem wrote:
I don't have a problem with current cloak mechanics and a lot of people don't. And since the people that don't like the mechanics are sov owners and ccp wants to nerf large sov coalitions ... If you they are consequent they shouldn't help them to be more safe.
im in a sov holding player org in a large coalition and have been subject to pizzas cloaky camping campaigns before and we have weathered it where others haven't. The problem is not the mechanics of cloaking, its the mechanics of covert cynos in conjunction with cloaks. ive never had issues with the cloak and its effects on a hostile in a system we have sov in, its the instant backup they can bring in in a split second, and the relative safety that backup enjoys from the undock of npc stations.
Then maybe make it that you can't bridge near a station/strukture. But this has nothing to do with afk cloaking... |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1185
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 15:30:39 -
[140] - Quote
zar dada wrote:Can my corporation prevent personal/out of corp structures in a system? Using some kind of module? Or observatory structure?
God no. That would be terrible.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
rsantos
Mosquito Squadron Mordus Angels
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 16:34:20 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hello people, We would like your feedback on the various new structure lines presented during Fanfest and on our latest structure blog. This particular thread is going to focus on Observatory Arrays and Gates.
- Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like tampering with Star Map filters, D-scan disruption, ship intelligence disruption, player tracking capabilities or being able to pinpoint cloak users
- Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.
About the "pinpoint cloak users"
I recommend the reading of the AFK Cloaking Thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=397030
D-scan disruption we already have that don't we? |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1050
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:05:44 -
[142] - Quote
I have to ask, are these the 'player built stargates' Seagull has been hyping for three years? Because if so... booooo!
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
5pitf1re
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:06:03 -
[143] - Quote
rsantos wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hello people, We would like your feedback on the various new structure lines presented during Fanfest and on our latest structure blog. This particular thread is going to focus on Observatory Arrays and Gates.
- Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like tampering with Star Map filters, D-scan disruption, ship intelligence disruption, player tracking capabilities or being able to pinpoint cloak users
- Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.
About the "pinpoint cloak users" I recommend the reading of the AFK Cloaking Thread. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=397030 D-scan disruption we already have that don't we?
I'm fairly sure that the D-Scan disruption is meant as a system wide effect, which is something we don't have yet. |
FistyMcBumBardier
TURN LEFT The Camel Empire
105
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:30:40 -
[144] - Quote
How will these structure lines work?
Will they be on the new stations, or just at random safespots in system? Will you be able to deploy multiples in the same system?
It looks like they will be able to be entosis'ed, so will you have a 48 hour timer and the constellation wide event for them as well?
This could give the possibility for having a LOT of entosis events in the same constellation.
If they are on a 48 hour timer then they will be spammed A LOT in order to keep sure the arrays keep giving their bonuses.
How many bonuses do you expect the observatory arrays to be able to give?
|
FistyMcBumBasher
TURN LEFT The Camel Empire
105
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:30:40 -
[145] - Quote
How will these structure lines work?
Will they be on the new stations, or just at random safespots in system? Will you be able to deploy multiples in the same system?
It looks like they will be able to be entosis'ed, so will you have a 48 hour timer and the constellation wide event for them as well?
This could give the possibility for having a LOT of entosis events in the same constellation.
If they are on a 48 hour timer then they will be spammed A LOT in order to keep sure the arrays keep giving their bonuses.
How many bonuses do you expect the observatory arrays to be able to give?
|
Strockhov
The Shire
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 19:10:32 -
[146] - Quote
Observatory Arrays, OA, could provide or modify lots of information or features about a solar system. This post isnGÇÖt touching that. Instead it is about providing the ability to network OA across multiple solar systems.
Lets pretend the OA can provide real time "true unfiltered" map information for a system as a result of some module/rig installed. If you have access to the OA you can access that information simply by being in the same system as one of the OA. If you are in a system without an OA that is part of the network, you do not have access to the "unfiltered" information. You see what everyone else does.
You place an OA in two adjacent solar systems. You install a module in each OA linking them to form a network. Now you have live map data for both solar systems as long as you are in one of them.
The question: How many nodes? Is the network one to one or one to many. Should access be limited to light years, constellation, region? How do we balance attacker vs defender. How do we generate player interaction How do we make geography matter.
Limiting the size of the network limits its value. We want to encourage adoption, so bigger networks should be possible. Wether itGÇÖs done by node count or light year or constellation it only impacts the value for the defender. It never helps the attacker. IGÇÖll tackle balancing the value for the attacker later. We have a couple of options to control size of the network.
One module on each end of a point to point link. All information is shared across all available links. Bigger modules or fitting requirement required for links that cross constellation or region boundaries or increasing LY distances. This allows for large networks. In some highly connected systems multiple modules would need to installed or multiple OA to handle all the links. This introduces geography to the system. Certain nodes based on location will be more important than others. Attacking key nodes would fragment the large network into smaller ones. Geography now matters which should be good. Players can build their networks as small or as large as they like. Nothing prevents them from building independent networks in the same system. For game balance limits can be placed on crossing any LY distance or region/constellation. The size of the network could impact fitting requirements. The more nodes in the network the more power grid or CPU the module requires.
If having one module per link is too restrictive on the slot lay out, the module might be able to handle multiple links(one to many) for a higher fitting cost or fuel consumption. This means the leaf node of the network could use lower fitting requirement modules while the inner nodes with multiple links need modules with higher fitting requirements. That also make taking out inner nodes more tempting.
Next, there needs to be a risk to having a network of OA. Attackers need to be able to gain access to the same information/benefits. I would extend the information to everyone in fleet with the attacker. This would suddenly turn a defensive strength into a tool for the attacking fleet. The entosis capture mechanism could provide this. The attacker uses the entosis on a OA. When the entosis is activated, an alert goes out notifying everyone with access to the OA that the OA is being accessed. The Defender can then select to defend the OA preventing access. That provides a point of conflict. After the initial activation and some brief capture time, the attacker gains access to the same information/benefits the OA provides. Duration of access has several options: 1) Timer base. 2) Until the OA is recaptured 3) The adjacent OA providing the link to the network is turned off/reconfigured. Which could fragment the mesh. 4) As long as you are on grid with the original OA. 5) Until you jump out of system/constellation/?
I suggest using the recapture by the owner. The owner also has the ability to sever the link to other systems by reconfiguring the other end of a link. Both mechanisms provide a point of possible combat.
When the owner regains control all access to the OA is reset. If someone leaves the attacking fleet, they lose the information feed. If someone joins the attacking fleet they gain access.
If multiple attacking fleets capture the OA, they all have access to the information until the owner recaptures it.
Since an attacker can co-opt the defenders network the need to destroy it is optional. This cuts down on the potential grind of installing OAs over and over.
Just an idea on networking OA across multiple systems. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9150
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 19:49:44 -
[147] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Sharing an idea I heard on the Fanfest pub crawl A one way directional jump bridge module. 1. You fuel it up and get everyone within range 2. Pick a rough destination on the map, no cyno required 3. Click the button and launch the fleet into the unknown 4. Based on the distance travelling the fleet does not necessarily land in the system they were aiming for 5. The fleet itself may also be scattered out over a system or even constellation 6. Everyone gets some amount of jump fatigue of course 7. You have to slow boat / pod express back Could be an interesting day tripping mechanic. hahaha, Man Cannon, can we please have this?
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
4649
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 20:50:54 -
[148] - Quote
This observatory array sounds promising.
I offer this version of a similar premise from the past, to add depth and options for small group play as well as major fleet action.
As this is an effort driven replacement / upgrade for intel, having it be vulnerable in the game on a level comparable to it's value in the game makes sense to me.
Originally posted november 5th, 2013, as a response in a long thread of other items.
Have intel operate in degrees of quality. Give it two dimensions for this as well.
Dimension one, quantity of intel. Dimension two, quality of intel.
Dimension one, would give ship numbers, then types, finally pilot names. Dimension two, would give presence of neutrals, reduce delay to zero, then give presence of cloaked vessels.
Dimension one structures, which would be harder targets, would be POS add ons. Dimension two structures, which would be easier targets meant for roams or smaller gangs, would be only in open space away from overview beacon items. These would need to be scanned down.
Examples: Dimension 1: Level 3 Dimension 2: Level 3 Full list of pilot names, with faction tag visible. Ship type listed next to name, highlighted if cloaking active.
Dimension 1: Level 3 Dimension 2: Level 0 Full list of pilot names, with ship type next to name. NO faction standings listed, not defining cloak status. ALL UPDATES DELAYED by 30 to 60 seconds, (balance adjusting by devs)
Dimension 1: Level 1 Dimension 2: Level 3 No pilot names. 4 Numbers listed. 1st number is how many friendly pilots (2nd is how many are cloaked) 3rd number is how many neutral or hostile (4th is how many are cloaked)
And for the curious, here is the actual for the 0-3 combo. (This tactical setup could be anchored on relatively short notice, and has no strategic side as the above do)
Dimension 1: Level 0 Dimension 2: Level 3 A single light indicator Not lit if no other pilots present Green light lit if all friendly Yellow light lit if hostiles present Red light lit if hostile cloaked present
I figure this eliminates any need for hunting cloaked ships specifically, although that can be sorted into if the devs see balanced opportunity.
If done carefully, it can actually be effective, and a good support for everyone having a great game play experience.
The two dimensional system has one side for sov level support, only truly threatened by massive blob warfare, which only offers mass level intel. The other side is for pilot level, whether operating solo or in small groups. The intel is more detailed, as well as quicker to install or destroy, depending on your perspective.
Both benefit strongly when the other side is present.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:46:56 -
[149] - Quote
Nothing about OAs or Gates (warp speed limitiing abilities) sounds like a positive change for eve. It seems like it is going to be abused and make nullsec a SOV owners paradise. All those corps will be able to ratt and mine for ore in peace knowing that they have the advanced intel and control of warp speed of attacking fleet. Also (possibly?) limiting the amount of WH spawns furthering control of unwanted players in their space.Not to mention the cloaky detection ability.
Come one CCP stop listening to nullbears. SOV holders don't need more ways to help them hold and control space. If you want to make SOV more desirable this is the wrong way of going about it. All this will do is make the markets as a whole suffer.
I am for notion of completely trashing the OA idea. Too many negative consequences I see coming from it. Any change should really be thoroughly thought about and tested long before this is pushed onto Tranquility. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1757
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 21:50:04 -
[150] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:I have to ask, are these the 'player built stargates' Seagull has been hyping for three years? Because if so... booooo! No
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |