| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1489
   |
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:27:34 -
[1] - Quote
I really like the "mesh network" idea that got floated during the Fanfest presentations. Removing local by default and clawing it back with structures is a very satisfying mechanic and I hope some serious work goes into making it happen.
Anti-AFK Cloaking is a pretty hot-button issue. How dedicated is the team to making this happen?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1492
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:06:21 -
[2] - Quote
afkalt wrote:You cannot allow any combination which becomes a carebears paradise - i.e. it needs to be LESS safe than today. Not more.
These structures are fully destructible. Why shouldn't we be able to claw out superior sensor suites when a band of murderous and marauding maniacs can easily destroy them?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1492
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:09:44 -
[3] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:You cannot allow any combination which becomes a carebears paradise - i.e. it needs to be LESS safe than today. Not more. These structures are fully destructible. Why shouldn't we be able to claw out superior sensor suites when a band of murderous and marauding maniacs can easily destroy them? Because of course, a roaming gang hunting 'bears TOTALLY bring enough power to the field to start blapping structures 
I guess you missed where the entosis link was the mechanic responsible for large structure destruction.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1492
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:21:55 -
[4] - Quote
afkalt wrote:If it gets safer, you might as well add a new structure called "The BatphoneGäó" which will cause concord to come blow up "illegal" aggressors in your space.
I do not think, sir, you've ever hunted ratters.
A ratter will escape in 30 seconds, not the 20 odd MINUTES a link takes. Plus the RF timer measured in DAYS.
You are thinking at too small a scale. Destroying the structures isn't a quick-fix to allow you to get one kill GÇö it's applying pressure to reduce the safety of the space in question so that subsequent kills become easier. Defenders should have the ability to spend isk and time to secure their space.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1493
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:34:26 -
[5] - Quote
afkalt wrote:No-one gets to "afk defend" by virtue of spending isk. It is the antithesis of how the game should work, you don't get to buy protection - you make it yourself with ACTIVE players.
Imagine if someone posted "I should get to spend isk to make me all but impossible to gank in my freighter, even though it's already stupid hard to gank. To balance it, a bunch of people can RF and maybe destroy the protection over a period of days. This will totally make my ship vulnerable and completely balanced". That's pretty much what you'd be asking for here.
At BEST the level of safety at maximum level should be equivalent to today.
Your freighter vignette is not even remotely congruent to the observation tower proposals. The difference is so large that your vignette borders on hysteria. Sensor towers don't provide invulnerability; they provide intelligence that people living in sov can use to better police and evade those who wish to kill them.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1493
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 13:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
afkalt wrote:You know you could just pony up and say you want to rat in complete safety (provided you have a pulse). All the reward, none of the risk.
It would be more honest.
Personally, I don't rat; ratting is for the lower classes. I'm far too rich to have to denigrate myself with such base activity.
My interests are more focused on being able to secure the space that belongs to me. Traffic control and detection will be vital for maintaining and defending sov under Sov 5.0.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:00:28 -
[7] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
Oh and in case it wasn't clear - needing to commit to tearing down sov structures over a period of days to endanger any ratter who has managed to stay conscious is not desirable nor is it reasonable.
Far be it for you to have to commit to even a fraction of the effort that the defenders have to employ.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:04:25 -
[8] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:
Oh and in case it wasn't clear - needing to commit to tearing down sov structures over a period of days to endanger any ratter who has managed to stay conscious is not desirable nor is it reasonable.
Far be it for you to have to commit to even a fraction of the effort that the defenders have to employ. It is tough to get a scout/alt to watch the pipe, it's true.
They must not have wormholes or logoffskis where you live, I guess.
Your tactical repertoire is pretty lacking if the only weapon you can conceive of for hurting hostiles is counterable by a scout on the pipe. Where's the afk cloaking? Where's the bridging? Where's the awoxing?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:50:10 -
[9] - 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.
This is a pretty good idea, especially if it's available on smaller-sized structures that are more viable for attackers to use (and discard.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1500
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:16:17 -
[10] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
If you actually read the thread you'll notice that my first post was that it should not be possible to be safer than TODAY.
At this point, your compatriots jumped all over me. So tell me, who has the agenda?
No -- you opined that it was imperative that the new system be necessarily less "safe" than today.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:31:58 -
[11] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Less safe, not more was what I said.
And as I said, was promptly jumped on. Who did the jumping and as to their reasons is nothing I can influence however so I'll kindly ask for the removal of the conspiracy/bias/"agenda" tinfoil hattery you all have got going in here.
We do not need MORE safety out in null.
I mean just look at the ideas on this PAGE alone (or prior page, if this wraps). Find cloakers, easy scanning, fake dscan results. All conducive to a nice, safe blanket with which to sit in almost complete safety. None of these promote conflict, none of these are conflict drivers. These are ALL designed to make space SAFER.
So do we really need more safety out there, is that what you're all telling me?
As long as the countermeasures are meaningfully interdictable, I see little problem with allowing more tools to protect one's space. I see no problem with requiring it to take slightly more effort to attack one's holdings than it does today.
You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that we are predicating this entire vignette on the removal of local in 0.0, and that we aren't even implying that a replacement for perfect local chat's system occupancy readout is necessary.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1503
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:36:50 -
[12] - Quote
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:The "I h8s teh claockey camperz" portion of the player base must be creaming their sweat pants over this.
Having a large structure that is able to facilitate locating cloaked ships in system does make sense; see submarine warfare.
I could see these structures at their base level being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in-system, but not be able to show where they are. By adding service modules, rigs and/or modules this ability gets more precise or powerful.
A moderately equipped OA could give enough intel to friendlies on its own to get a general area for a cloaked ship then facilitate an active friendly player in tracking it down. The simple way for the cloaked player to avoid this would be to change position. Hence, AFK campers would be the most vulnerable.
A very specialized OA with all slots dedicated to locating cloaked ships could go so far as to make a cloaked ship "shimmer" for a couple seconds when it the OA "pings".
The OAs could also be used like scan probes. Deploy a main OA then smaller ones around the given solar system like one would deploy probes. If players wanted to protect the space directly surrounding something important, like an asteroid field or an Admin structure, then the smaller OAs could be anchored close by and offer the highest resolution/effectiveness for that area. If players want to secure a wider area, then the resolution wouldn't be as good. Sure, some players might go hog wild and anchor dozens of OAs in a system, but its their ISK and their choice. I see this as an extreme example.
But timers, forced decloaking, activity sensors are all a resounding NO. Those are all non-active mechanics. It just takes what is perceived as unbalanced and puts it on the other side.
Agreed GÇö-áanti-cloaking measures should absolutely require active players (potentially multiple) to operate, and an active cloaker should be able to evade the measures, perhaps trivially.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 16:46:38 -
[13] - Quote
Kopaka Newton wrote:Being able to affect wormholes with a structure would be really awesome. Like extending the mass limit by reducing the lifetime and vice-versa, for example, or having a structure capable of reading the remaining time and mass.
I've long lobbied for a device to help force wormholes open.
Perhaps they'd be deployed in pairs on either side of the wormhole, with a ring on one of the structures (to indicate polarity.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1513
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 18:19:02 -
[14] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Are there plans to increase the different venues of information that can gathered from an observation post, outside of currently obtainable information?
For example:
Ships logged off in system
History of pilots spotted
Watch list jamming?
Watch list jamming would be extremely cool to have. As it stands, nonconsensual watch listing provides way too much intelligence about enemy forces in a way that is extremely easy to read from the client's memory and output into an irc channel. Short of removing nonconsensual watchlisting, having a mechanism to blunt its effectiveness would be marvelous.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:09:53 -
[15] - Quote
laassaalos Kiblos wrote:Would it be possible to link local to these observation arrays? Many times now Fozie has said he hates local. Why don't we make it so these arrays are in all low sec and high sec and not in null and must be placed. I think probably a limitation for WH, I doubt they would want an active local.
Some kind of observation array. Basic array takes 30 seconds to register a player in local. Then upgraded like 5 seconds and then highly upgraded array is instant appearance in local. Could also link it to gate activation. Maybe also deny local to certain people based on standings.
Not sure how far this can go, but some kind of mechanic like that maybe cool if hacking could then disrupt local. So defending in in a sov war can be quite helpful, while the attacker might find it appealing to hack it and create surprise attacks or just hack it to gain local.
I daresay that is the entire point GÇö observation arrays replace or enable Local functionality, in whole or in part, among other tasks.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:31:43 -
[16] - Quote
afkalt wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:afkalt wrote:Less safe, not more was what I said.
And as I said, was promptly jumped on. Who did the jumping and as to their reasons is nothing I can influence however so I'll kindly ask for the removal of the conspiracy/bias/"agenda" tinfoil hattery you all have got going in here it is not a good idea to use the number of how many people pointed out the obvious flaws in your reasoning as support for that reasoning Except they've not. It's just been a giant circle jerk of how to make their space safer. Of course expecting anything else is like turkeys voting for Christmas...
Nah, that's just the way you see it. You continue to refuse to believe that our vignettes pivot around the fulcrum of traditional local, perfect and free, going away. This is a marked reduction in safety and requires significant effort and cost to restore (at least, the way we'd like to see it.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1526
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:07:53 -
[17] - Quote
I love the idea of making "fast lanes" that have accelerated warp speed between them as a way to move people (and industrial goods) more quickly between systems.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1544
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 04:41:58 -
[18] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Querns wrote:afkalt wrote:Less safe, not more was what I said.
And as I said, was promptly jumped on. Who did the jumping and as to their reasons is nothing I can influence however so I'll kindly ask for the removal of the conspiracy/bias/"agenda" tinfoil hattery you all have got going in here.
We do not need MORE safety out in null.
I mean just look at the ideas on this PAGE alone (or prior page, if this wraps). Find cloakers, easy scanning, fake dscan results. All conducive to a nice, safe blanket with which to sit in almost complete safety. None of these promote conflict, none of these are conflict drivers. These are ALL designed to make space SAFER.
So do we really need more safety out there, is that what you're all telling me? As long as the countermeasures are meaningfully interdictable, I see little problem with allowing more tools to protect one's space. I see no problem with requiring it to take slightly more effort to attack one's holdings than it does today. You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that we are predicating this entire vignette on the removal of local in 0.0, and that we aren't even implying that a replacement for perfect local chat's system occupancy readout is necessary. Sov null is the safest space already for PVE, why do you think core game mechanics should be altered to make it even safer?
It never fails to amaze me that people think that an area of space that allows you to destroy anyone at will with no automatic consequences, as well as control/restrict their movement, is safer than an area of space where NPC police literally spawn to kill you if you deign to turn your weapons on another.
Would it hurt your ickle brainmeats to display some adaptability?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
| |
|