Player Features and Ideas Discussion

(theoretical intro - if do not like to read, skip to modules proposal)

The remains of the horse have been carefully examined...:
Many have posted their opinion on AFK-cloakers and how they should be dealth with.
In light of fact that Nullsec, a dark and dangerous place where is no nanny or CONCORD forces, due to Local-list has become (in theory) place somehow safer than Lowsec - AFK-cloakers are symptom, not a cause of situation.

Too high relative security in Nullsec is the cause.

Many point Local-list to be culprit as it is 100% accurate list of all pilots being connected to Solar-system facilities.
Unfortunately simple taking down Local-list is way to drastic method, same with simple signing-off it by using cloaking module.
It is unfair to general rule - the bigger risk - the bigger prize.
Nullsec with its prizes have become place of low risk place while care-bearing in Highsec renders often higher risk, not mentioning Lowsec...

Properly managed risk will bring huge profits.
So 'the bigger risk - the bigger prize' rule have been heavily distorted.
AFK-cloakers only use available methods to remind many that there is no such thing as security in Nullsec... or anywhere else. There is just the prize that can make someone willing risk his ISK to get it.

What really is needed is a method to bring back monsters lurking in the dark to Nullsec.

---

Module proposal.

---

I propose 2 methods to take off temporarily name of pilot or pilots from Local-list.

1. Personal method.
Pilot equips an hacking implant (only one such possible at any moment) that allows him to connect and hack to Infrastructure Hub.
Implant: Personal hacking Interface
Attributes: Algorithm Transforming Speed (how fast it is at hacking - the higher the better), Chip Interfacing Protocol (how well implant is handling Data Encryption Keys, the higher the better)
Usage: Pilot with Implant and loaded Data Encryption Key get close to Infrastructure Hub and Uses Ships remaining CPU multiplied by Algorithm Transforming Speed modified by Hubs Data Encryption Protocols to hack in and stop Hub from broadcasting that pilots name to other pilots (so taking his name off Local-list).
Range: ships targeting range. Pilot must have Hub locked while hacking. Going out of range or breaking hacking cycle means he must start hacking from start.

2. Squad method.
Pilot fits ship with hacking array that allows him to (similar like in personal method) connect and hack into Infrastructure Hub. The difference is this pilot will take down his and his squad members names off Local-list.
Module: Hacking array.
Same type attributes and usage, etc, as in Personal method. Different values and prereqs tho.


Ships with virus strength bonus like Magnate would multiply its remaining CPU by that factor (so x5 in case of Magnate).

Infrastructure Hub, in military group would gain Data Encryption Cluster upgrade. The higher the level of it, the more strength of protection (which must be broken for pilot with its ships CPU to successfully hack in) and the more complicated the algorithm (making hackers use more CPU to gain same effect so slowing him down).

Whenever pilot that personally hacked or hacked for his squad leaves the system - he will have to do the hacking again when he enters same system.
Normal hacking speed when he enters system after being pod-killed (personal) or his ship got destroyed (squad) or IH got new chip.
2x hacking speed if he has been not ship/pod killed and IH got no new chips/routines.
Hacking speed increased by 33% if IH got only new routines.

If hackers squad member get killed or leave system or got DC or accidentally leave fleet or squad - will have several minutes to get back. If he manages to get back to squad or to system - he will still be hacked out from Local-list.
New squad members that joined after hacking occurred - will not be taken out of Local-list.

Possible situation:
Squad hacker fly into system, breaks into IH, then his squad mates fly in without ever showing on Local-list. Still can be found with use of probes if not cloaked.

Chips and routines.
1. Routine is just rewritten method of encrypting data in IH.
Any member can go and do that if he has sufficient skills to hack such Hub.
Routines can be changed once per 24hr (once per Down Time?) and need same equipment and time as hacking do.
Changing routine after someone hacked IH will not make hacker or hackers squad visible on Local-list.

2. Chip.
Chips are data encryption chips gained from destroyed enemy facilities in Faction Warfare.
Pilots and corporations can obtain them for LP gained in FW (enemy faction chips for LP, other faction chips - on the market from those who want to sell them).
Chips are used either to secure data in IH (due to proper equipment those chips get damaged only when hacked but not so fast as chips used to do hacking) or break into data.
When chip is used to break into data - he is being burned. Chip do not get burned when hacking stopped (successful or not).
Hacker need chip of same faction as one installed in IH to break into it.
So if Solar-system XXX-YYY got Amarr chip installed in IH then Hacker will need Amarr Encryption methods skill and Amarr chip to break into IH.
If IH has no chip then hacker do need any chip and only Hacking (non faction) skill is needed to hack in.


Hacking do not remove ship from Overview!
Overview uses ships internal short range sensors, not Solar-systems sensor array and databases (Local-list).

---

So what do you think?
Rough sketch so lots of place for changes.
There are hacking skills already, lets make more use of them...

Then stop making alts, lol. "Nooo, it'll ruin my perfect looking skill list"

Now on topic... i have no idea how will this effect the situation, but sounds fun.

Well, now I know this is bad idea - because it would be fun and we know in EVE fun is not allowed. ;)

When it comes to affecting situation - it would enforce grouping up in Null for security reasons.
It would enforce protecting sectors in active way - scanning duty, IH patrols, guarding industrialists (not only from rats).
So generally it would enforce grouping up - so the way, In my understanding, how EVE in Nullsec should be played.
There is plenty of things to do in Highsec for all those who are not ready for Null...

No local = wormhole space. This is a large characteristic that is unique to wormholes. That said, this is a risk that w-space pilots acknowledge and accept. This is not a characteristic of null-sec. If you want to be the monster lurking in space with your prey having no knowledge of your existence, go to w-space.

Cloaky camping is already, for all intents and purposes, zero risk. As a null-sec pilot, I'm fine with that. A cloaky bomber in my system means nothing to me. Either you'll get baited and killed, or go away.

I suppose you could 'Add to Contacts' every cloaky that comes into your system as soon as they enter, and have eyes in all adjacent systems, so you know when they leave local whether they've left your system, logged off, or simply hacked your ihub. Personally, that sounds ridiculous.

Cloaky campers seem to all have similar views on this matter. Null-bears need more risk. I'm fine with shared risk. But what you are talking about is something that makes your job much easier, and lower risk, while doing nothing to balance it.

I understand your point of view, though. You want to be able to gank expensive ships with zero risk to yourself. Don't we all? The difference is, most of us don't dream up convoluted game changes to make it possible.

Hi there.

PvE miner here, and I am here to inform that I consider the current use of local to be highly damaging to my play style.

I have no interest in competing by use of several alts all mining at once. I know people who do this, and I respect their play choices. I should not need to follow this path to compete, however.

I would prefer to see miners in other alliances explode nicely, so they stop grinding out mass produced ore. My prices are being held down by risk free mining groups, using ships that would be considered at-risk in high sec for suicide ganking.

I am interested in quality of play, not quantity.
I want to make more effort to be secure, in order to mine minerals and ice that is not available in safer parts of the game.
But since the bar on effort is dictated by free and complete presence intel, no effort I make can overcome this to achieve better results.

It makes no difference if I have scouts alerting me two systems over, if my competition needs only see a new name in local to be able to avoid them 100% of the time. My efforts mean nothing to gather intel, because the added quality has no in game benefit.

best suggestion which is regularly broght up on forums.

Whilst I also like this idea it did occur to me that this could actually be more useful to pve types (particularly miners). For the clever miner, sit in the middle of a constellation and you can definitely get safe if a red comes as you have more notice than you did with local.

Now, I know this means that for most miners that will mean they can be locked in station by one red in the constellation but for those like me who like to reship and go try to find the red it means that we can pretty much guarantee not losing another mining ship.

So, I love the idea but it would reduce the ability for pvp typed to jump miners. Not sure whether people will see that as good or bad.

Well the "collective" Locale per Nullsec constelation or region wch I imagine should be far quicker and easier to do) did not pin attention of devs.

I do not kid myself it is not about money.
More alts in theory = more profits to CCP so I try go along this line.

I am jut trying to think an proposal that would in some degree satisfy both ends.

The hacking In my opinion would fit in above frames.
- new content
- way to hide from Locale
- potential for rise in plex demand (yet another alt way)
- achievable without need for alt

Good point with gates and TCU. So Locale-hacking should be on TCU, not on IH? Not a big change.
Te thing is to drive it from gates as those are often camped or watched so hacking on them would be virtually impossible.

You are getting ahead of yourself.

Point one, if there is no local, it is already been stated there must be something of equivalent value that is effort based.

Point two, if there is an effort based alternative, all the cloaking types I know of are willing to take a risk being hunted as well.
The balance point in many discussions agree that to hunt cloaked vessels, the free awareness that they are present must be missing from local.

That means you can hunt them proactively, in case one might be present, or reactively in the cases where they are proven in the area.