| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ardamalis
Caldari
A Third Betrayal
Circle of the Shadows
   |
Posted - 2011.01.10 20:57:00 -
[1]
This received a lot of positive feedback from the Features and Ideas discussion forum so IĘve decided to post it here also.
Most of us fall within two camps:
Those who love 0.0 local, and those who hate it. To me, the current state of local isn't very satisfying and neither is the prospect of completely removing it, so I propose a change that would be a small step: making local a sovereignty upgrade.
Basic Overview:
The mechanics are simple. Unclaimed 0.0 space does not have local chat; however, upon claiming a star system, the holder can immediately install a communication beacon on the infrastructure hub. The beacon creates a local channel within the solar system that everyone automatically joins and cannot leave. The beacon is created in a predetermined bookmarked spot in each solar system and can be warped to via overview.
*Note* npc 0.0 regions are unaffected and continue to have local
So what does this mean for Pirates/Terrorists/Gankers?
This communication beacon is very fragile. A single battleship shooting at the beacon could disable it within fifteen minutes. Upon destruction of the beacon, the system becomes "dark." A "dark" system no longer has local chat and acts similar to wh space. This remains so until the sov holder repairs the beacon again.
A small gang could roam enemy systems, destroying beacons as they went. These systems would become "dark" and its inhabitants would be easy prey. A single raid may not score very many kills, as all of the inhabitants would still flee upon seeing you in local; however, under a sustained campaign of raids and roams, you could easily catch enemy ratters, miners, and travelers off guard in "dark" systems. It offers a lot more  to those who are determined.
So what does this mean for Sovereignty Holders?
This change is not completely one-sided for the terrorists. There are benefits for the carebears also. The catch with communication beacons is that the owner can choose to turn off them off at anytime. Upon turning off a beacon, the system becomes "dark"; however, the beacon can always be onlined immediately.
Imagine if you are about to stage an assault on a neighboring sov holder. Your fleet forms up in one of your own star systems; however, as many of you already have experienced, the enemy already knows that you are coming long before you ever reach their territory because of scouts watching local. Now imagine if local could be turned off. You could turn off local chat on all of your neighboring systems. Your fleet could form up and travel stealthily. Of course your enemy would be suspicious at seeing all of your beacons turned off; however, he does not know how many ships you have and where you will strike. In addition, you could send groups of covert ops ships to pop the beacons in your enemy's territory further adding to his confusion. Scouting by visual confirmation becomes more important.
Have you ever felt frustrated with terrorist gatecamps? A group of terrorists camps one of your gates. As soon as you get a fleet ready and jump into the adjacent system, the gatecamp immediately scatters because a scout on the other side raised the alarm. ItĘs almost impossible to catch them but what if you could turn off local? If local were turned off in the adjacent systems of the gatecamp, a fleet could bounce them at anytime.
The uses for turning off beacons are nearly endless for sov holders. If you are planning a fancy mining op, you could turn off the beacon in the system to conceal yourself; however, you risk being jumped. ItĘs a trade. No one knows you are there but you don't know if anyone else is there.
-----
To be continuedą. |
Regorix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 20:59:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Regorix on 10/01/2011 20:59:10
Edit: doh posted with my alt
An Example Scenario:
Here is how I envision this system playing out:
Imagine that you are a generic 0.0 permanent resident. You log in and immediately glance at your intel channel. It lists in the announcement:
The following systems are dark: (system names made up)
- JKL-9H
- MNB-7N
- ZW-8U
TRAVEL THROUGH THESE SYSTEMS AT YOUR OWN RISK!
Naturally as a generic 0.0 permanent resident you would take care to avoid them but if those dark system contained the only nearby outpost, your corp POS, your alliance jumpgate, or the system was located in a pipe, you may find yourself going through them anyways. Some systems are prime targets for knocking down communication beacons.
Now let us imagine that you are faced with a dilemna, you need to do X but to get to the location of X you have to go through a system that is dark.
You really cannot wait so you decide to ask in local, "JKL-9H status?"
and then you get the response, "I went through a few minutes ago, didn't see anything on the gates."
So you then decide to jump through. The jump into the dark system and hold your cloak. You see nothing on d-scan so you uncloak and prepare to warp. But suddenly a red recon uncloaks next to you and points you. Oh noes ! A few moments later, a gang of red ships warps to the gate from their distant safe spot  . Life can be cruel .
In short, the average resident is still fairly safe; however, there can be times where extensive red activity can make things extremely dangerous.
Summary (TLDR):
Unclaimed 0.0 systems do not have local. Upon claiming, an alliance can immediately anchor a communication beacon for a fee. This beacon grants local chat to the system. The beacon does not have a lot of health and can be destroyed very quickly by a very small gang. Destruction of a beacon removes local until the beacon is anchored again. The sov holder can choose at anytime online or offline the communication beacon at will. This can be used to great effect as a concealment or defensive tool.
Discuss: |
Ephemeron
The Dirty Dozen
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 23:04:00 -
[3]
I cannot support any solution that does not remove local from NPC 0.0 regions.
|
CommanderData211
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 00:26:00 -
[4]
I was skeptical, but I really freakin like this idea
|
Rented
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 01:09:00 -
[5]
Bit too random imo. One way or the other, not arbitrarily both.
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 01:28:00 -
[6]
Removing local yes , but it must go along wiht somewhat cloak nerf.
Ability to detect or consumption of fuel for example.
On and d-scan remodeling.
|
Anubis Xian
Word Bearers of Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 01:52:00 -
[7]
Why not NPC regions?
 Originally by: CCP Oveur
The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
CINA
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 02:12:00 -
[8]
Now find a way to make the mechanic portable to NPC nullsec, low sec and hisec, then I will buy into it :)
Such an element of infrastructure will provide a clear target for roaming/black ops gangs.
--
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Regorix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 02:52:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Regorix on 11/01/2011 02:52:48
I am quite surprised that everyone wants it to affect npc 0.0. I got the exact opposite sentiment on the features/ideas.
Off the top of my head I am unsure of any good solution. You could give them beacons also and have em respawn after a certain amount of time but I find that less than ideal. If anyone finds a good solution by all means, I'll edit it in. |
Regorix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 15:35:00 -
[10]
giving this one bump |
|
|
Anubis Xian
Word Bearers of Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 17:25:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Regorix
I am quite surprised that everyone wants it to affect npc 0.0. I got the exact opposite sentiment on the features/ideas.
Off the top of my head I am unsure of any good solution. You could give them beacons also and have em respawn after a certain amount of time but I find that less than ideal. If anyone finds a good solution by all means, I'll edit it in.
For now I removed the line about keeping 0.0 npc the same.
Well, why would a pirate faction want to help anyone else who lives in its space? Maybe NPC 0.0 Local should require certain standings with the NPC faction.
Originally by: CCP Oveur
The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
CINA
|
Ari Kelor
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 17:37:00 -
[12]
I support this.
I also think that NPC 0.0 should not be included in the mechanic. If you don't want local, get your own sov. |
Midnight Pheonix
The Grimreapers.
Destiny Corrupted.
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 17:45:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Regorix
I am quite surprised that everyone wants it to affect npc 0.0. I got the exact opposite sentiment on the features/ideas.
Off the top of my head I am unsure of any good solution. You could give them beacons also and have em respawn after a certain amount of time but I find that less than ideal. If anyone finds a good solution by all means, I'll edit it in.
For now I removed the line about keeping 0.0 npc the same.
Well, why would a pirate faction want to help anyone else who lives in its space? Maybe NPC 0.0 Local should require certain standings with the NPC faction.
Great I can support this, but make it based on standings completely, so if your roaming lowsec and have low caldari standings, the caldari systems don't show you local, but high sec should remain the same.
This will make NPC 0.0 alot more interesting as most ratting bears have horrible pirate standings.
Midna |
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 17:54:00 -
[14]
Honestly, I'd prefer it if only people who are in the alliance or have positive standings would get immediate access to local. Everybody else would have it delayed if the owners of the tower decided so (give it an option).
In the same respect, you could have NPC 0.0 local based on the standings with the faction. Overall, I support this core idea, but not necessarily the implementation given.
========
"The civilized man is rude, for he knows that laws protect him from recompense; whereas the savage is not, for his actions can meet a bloody end." - Robert E. Howard |
Regorix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 18:00:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Regorix on 11/01/2011 18:03:38
Edited by: Regorix on 11/01/2011 18:03:04
Edited by: Regorix on 11/01/2011 18:01:35
Edited by: Regorix on 11/01/2011 18:00:50
I am unsure of giving local to a selective group simply because I don't think its going to work in practice. Everyone will simply use spies or alts to check local. The status quo continues (albeit a little more inconvenient).
As for npc 0.0 and lowsec I leave it unanswered. Let another suggestion deal with them. Judge this based upon its impact on 0.0 sov regions.
On a side note:
Personally I am a fan of delayed local based on system sec status. 1.0 = 0 sec delay with an additional 3 seconds of delay per 0.1 decrease in sec status. I would love to see this suggestion in this thread and a delayed local added together but that is for another thread. |
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 18:18:00 -
[16]
I APPROVE
Well-thought out, although I would put a 2 minute delay for onlining the communications tower so people A: can't spam the crap out of it and B: can't wildly abuse it.
--
Need a break from EVE? |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 18:27:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Obsidian Hawk on 11/01/2011 18:27:20
Now this one i like,
REasons - it doesnt fully remove local but provides an option to have it be there or not be. Not the extreme remove all local perma.
My thoughts - NPC 0.0, low sec and high sec are excluded from this. Leave this to only affect player controllable space.
now following the lore and crap to have local, you must draw a local line from empire or a 0.0 npc space. EX- if you live in NGM-0K there has to be a beacon anchored in each system leading back to either thukker npc space or low sec empire space to have local there. Now this can be done via a direct line or by way of tying into another 0.0 dweller say, your phone line from there goes to providence to connect to empire.
This could be more interesting as a small fleet could take down communications in 1 system and quite possibly knock out all local communication for the alliance.
anyway just some thoughts.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 20:12:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Bunyip
Honestly, I'd prefer it if only people who are in the alliance or have positive standings would get immediate access to local. Everybody else would have it delayed if the owners of the tower decided so (give it an option).
I like this.
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
now following the lore and crap to have local, you must draw a local line from empire or a 0.0 npc space. EX- if you live in NGM-0K there has to be a beacon anchored in each system leading back to either thukker npc space or low sec empire space to have local there. Now this can be done via a direct line or by way of tying into another 0.0 dweller say, your phone line from there goes to providence to connect to empire.
This could be more interesting as a small fleet could take down communications in 1 system and quite possibly knock out all local communication for the alliance.
I like this. Small gangs should be able to mess with comms arrays.
P.S. There is already a model for comms arrays for missions which could be ported into this idea.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Regorix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 15:54:00 -
[19]
Bump |
nathanica
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 07:08:00 -
[20]
A pretty decent solution to the most commonly accepted and greatest exploit in eve. (using local as intel tool that is)
Learn to use dscan suckers.
|
|
|
Biomass MeNOW
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 14:30:00 -
[21]
It would need to be pretty stout, otherwise a gang of bombers would take it out in less than a minute.
Or give it the same vulnerabilities the other SOV structures have: I.E. to attack it requires that the system be rendered vulnerable through SBU spam.
|
Regorix
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 16:32:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Regorix on 14/01/2011 16:38:22
Edited by: Regorix on 14/01/2011 16:38:02
Edited by: Regorix on 14/01/2011 16:37:19
Originally by: Biomass MeNOW
It would need to be pretty stout, otherwise a gang of bombers would take it out in less than a minute.
It cuts both ways. If its easy to disable, then its easy to rep. If anything, the beacon could get stronger based upon Sov level.
I am trying to kill out two birds with 1 stone here. Many folks complain about a lack of targets for small gangs. this would fill the void. Disruptions in chat aren't long events but they are frequent events. Makes for an interesting situation.
Just throwing an example out here:
sov 1: 0% resistances
sov 2: 8% resistances
sov 3: 16% resistances
sov 4: 24% resistances
sov 5: 32% resistances |
Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 16:50:00 -
[23]
I actually like this. It would make 0.0 more varied and interesting. If the beacon as fragile as you're suggesting it had better be cheap, however.
It would also cause an enormous spike in jumpbridge usage throughout all alliances and would result in even less 0.0 PvE isk generation in systems without a local channel (that is already in the doldrums according to the latest CSM blog)
To mitigate this I'd suggest variants... how about a temporary beacon that can simply be anchored in a system like a mobile warp disruptor bubble? This would be very easy to destroy but would ensure people could still go about their business in relative security. I understand that pirates, solo PvP vaga and dramiel pilots and the like would love this crap, but let's face it... it would just result in even more empty 0.0 systems.
Make the SOV upgrade version much tougher but also more pricey, or even add a constellation local services version available in station services for outposts.
So what we'd get would be;
Idiots ratting alone in isolated systems would be more vulnerable
Potential gankers would be vulnerable flying around alliance 'capital' constellations because all of those systems would have local available.
A PvE oriented 'team' would have the option to anchor a T1 and more resilient T2 variant of a communications array in order to give them warning if someone appeared in their system. This would be a good counter to the current hotdrop ethos and would encourage remote mining/missioning/ratting as a group activity.
An alliance moving into an area and making it a staging point, or 'capital' would be able to upgrade an outpost to support local for the constellation, constellations or even region that outpost is in. This could function as an info-war early warning system.
I'm not trying to nerf your idea any, but low-sec proves that most people are fairly risk-averse, and if you make any gameplay changes that increase risk, people (specially younger players) will just go elsewhere, get bored and cancel their subs eventually.
|
Avoida
|
Posted - 2011.01.14 17:33:00 -
[24]
Why shoot the beacon? Using guns/missiles/drones is just boring. Instead require the use of a Codebreaker module to crack* the 4 character alphanumeric password the owning alliance entered when the Hub upgrade was installed, then use an Analyzer disable the communication network for that system.
For the defenders to regain control of the communications beacon they must repeat the same process.
*To prevent this process happening too quickly or being too easy, each notification of a successful code break gives the hacker one of the password characters. Thus the attacker needs 4 successful attempts to get the full password.
|
PriceCheck Kotare
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 23:09:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Avoida
Why shoot the beacon? Using guns/missiles/drones is just boring. Instead require the use of a Codebreaker module to crack* the 4 character alphanumeric password the owning alliance entered when the Hub upgrade was installed, then use an Analyzer disable the communication network for that system.
For the defenders to regain control of the communications beacon they must repeat the same process.
*To prevent this process happening too quickly or being too easy, each notification of a successful code break gives the hacker one of the password characters. Thus the attacker needs 4 successful attempts to get the full password.
I like this, it sounds interesting. Maybe both options? You can shoot it or hack it - the more durable/larger modules have longer passwords. Also, the beacon shouldn't be destructable really, just make it reinforce like a POS module if you shoot it, and ppl can repair it later to make it operational.
However, I think most of you are missing one big point - WHY DO HOSTILES GET TO USE MY SOV UPGRADES? If I go to the trouble of putting up local beacons, why does a hostile get the benefit of my info upgrade? Local should be for blues - let them see the WH version of it. If they want local they have to drop one of the anchorable modules in each system to get it, in every system they want it in. Fair's fair - all the gankers and solo pvpers in these type of threads all complain that 0.0 is too safe and want no local at all. This is a good compromise - the Sov holder A) has to pay for local and B) can have local disabled via player mechanics that aren't too arduous or difficult.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |