These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

System Occupancy Surveillance

Author
Alundil
Rolled Out
#1 - 2014-05-12 18:58:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Alundil
With the pending removal of API-based kill information in wormhole space I'd like to propose an in-game method to gather intel that requires pilot initiative to both deploy/benefit from as well as counteract/remove. This takes the form of a deployable structure primarily intended to be used in the vast darkness of wormhole space.

System Occupancy Surveillance

This deployable structure would:
  • Gather system-wide intel
  • -- Not restricted by distance
    -- Records/reports average variance in detected levels of debris every 6 hours (intel is delayed - "due to vast distances signal must travel")
    -- Can differentiate between debris from sleeper technology and empire technology (detects various base components e.g. t1, t2, t3 and sleeper wrecks are all made from different components and would therefore have very different debris compositions)
    -- Can record delta of signatures and anomalies while active
    -- Can identify types of anomalies, NOT signatures
  • Relay/report above intel to anchoring pilot/corp via new screen accessible in scanner window
  • Be very difficult to find
  • -- Along the lines of the 'Yurt' sensor strength
  • Be relatively easy to kill (MTU levels of hitpoints)
  • -- Open to ideas on what these drop/salvage but should be something used in their manufacture
  • Generate killmail
  • -- Why? because we love them
  • Not show up on default overview
  • Not create a warpable beacon (a la ESS)
  • Need to be scanned down using combat probes
  • -- Effort should be required to find and kill these
  • Be anchored by pilot/corp
  • Be scooped by pilot/corp
  • Be player manufactured
  • Cost roughly 150m ISK
  • -- Expensive enough to not easily be abandoned or carelessly placed
    -- Expensive enough to warrant some time spent hunting it
  • Can be hacked by anyone using existing data analyzer module
  • -- Offers a 15% chance (tbd) on successful hack to alter the data reporting accuracy and frequency
    -- Offers a 5% chance to offline the mobile device
    -- Offers a 1% chance to unanchor the mobile device (could be scooped by anyone)

I'm right behind you

Alundil
Rolled Out
#2 - 2014-05-12 19:25:32 UTC
Copying over from "Glimpse" thread as question/response is pertinent

Alundil wrote:
HTC NecoSino wrote:
I, personally, don't like the idea of an anchorable structure for this, simply because it goes too much against the whole "free intel without being present" idea. Plus, how would these things report the data back to you? Surely not through a wormhole.

Although, a giant, shootable probe launched into space for 5 minutes is pretty much the same thing I suppose, lol. I just prefer the probe idea since:

1: that's what it is doing, probing.
2: Only the pilot that launches it gets the intel, not everyone
3: It's active, and requires pilot interaction to get data
4: It makes the pilot vulnerable by screaming "I'm here, I'm looking for farmers to kill"


To your points.

The data is no longer "free" if effort and expense must be taken to receive the benefit. There is also a very hard counter to this form of intel gathering - simply kill it. Unlike probes that can move around very very quickly and can be recalled instantly from anywhere in the system.
1. Data would/could be reported back via a "remote data feed" visible in the scanner window. Remote viewing of data is already ingame in mechanics like PI
2. In the case of the SOS, I'm open to either option. Launch for self only. Launch for self/corp, either is fine by me.
3. Dropping the SOS in a manner that would make detection (and subsequent destruction) difficult would be equally active and potentially more dangerous than decloaking for 3 seconds to drop probes.
4. Combat probing does/declares the very same things. Though I'd hardly call combat probing a "vulnerable" job since it is rarely done uncloaked.

I'm right behind you

Saerni
Confederation Navy Research
#3 - 2014-05-12 21:26:39 UTC
Assuming some implementation along the lines above, here are some features I would like to see:

(1) Application of this to all systems; alternative name "Interstellar Intelligence and News Unit"
(2) Provides information through an interface accessible to corporation, faction, or everyone based on owners settings

(3) Information/services provided:
(a) Recent ship/pod kills, with kill-mails
(b) Recent NPC activity (numbers destroyed with a breakdown by type)
(c) System-wide directional scanner functionality (with longer cool-down, can filter based on signals from "friendly" corp ships)
(d) Transfers control of local chat to owner-operator (can set channel type) (remove local and replace with NPC owned IINUs in high/low-sec) *Note: local is useless in w-space, since the channel is off by default, this lets a w-space system get turned "on" (selectively for non-corp members?) and opens up opportunities for hacking (to remove someone from local for 6? hours)

(4) Limitations
(a) 1 per system, accessible by authorized individuals within the system
(b) Require intermediate skill/equipment to scan down (more for higher metas)
(c) Have a reinforce timer (optional, only if fueled, fuel requirements vary by meta, 24 hours)
(d) Can be hacked to edit data (different variations harder to hack)
(e) Relatively easy to kill without reinforce
Alundil
Rolled Out
#4 - 2014-05-12 22:24:27 UTC
Thanks for the reply Saerni. While I hadn't thought about this in regards to (known space) in the slightest I could see how there might be some potential use cases there.

D-Scan remains the purview of the pilots in ships and requires constant interaction. And given the places that this device might be anchored and "d-scan" info granted might be relatively useless either way
--- Because the system should already be mapped by the time you decide to anchor one of these with all towers identified and accounted for
One per system might be ok IF this were setup in empire or sov null space for obvious ownership reasons. In w-space (un-owned and unmanaged) the restriction doesn't make as much sense imo.
I also think hacking-specific ideas have merit; altering data that the device returns would be potentially interesting from the standpoint of tricking someone into some trap.

That said, for this specific iteration I'd rather not have local chat or reinforcement timers associated to this:
1. Local chat is the devil
2. Shooting through reinforcement timer is also the devil (ie not fun)

I'm right behind you

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#5 - 2014-05-12 22:31:53 UTC
You should just ask Interbus to supply you with info. They completely mapped w-space when it was brand new, and still maintain a presence in many systems.
Jack Miton
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-05-12 22:35:36 UTC
Youre trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist mate.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Alundil
Rolled Out
#7 - 2014-05-13 05:30:29 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Youre trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist mate.

I disagree. How often do we actually wind up engaging something going on down the chain? It's a very, very small percent already. Hell, today alone we missed 2-3 hostile engagements in AUTZ. One was even a group in the middle of cap escalations and they were able to roll the hole away in the time it took to jump in, realize what was going on and get pilots heading in that direction.

Since the addition of the Odyssey discovery scanner that screams "Someone is coming to get you" well before anyone actually gets there, PvE has been safer than safe for all but the hopelessly idiotic. Coupled with the API changes dropping (next month?) and that safety is increased simply because there's no chance of detecting someone doing something down a scouted chain without dropping alts to hit dscan in system. I know you know the kinds of chains we generate (because you scan a hell of a lot of them). It's not feasible (**** gameplay) to watch every system in the chain (well over 25 in many cases) through the 16-24 hours of TZ coverage. So instead static gets rolled repeatedly hoping that "Bob" smiles on us and the locals are either 1) another WH PvP group with enough actives online to 'honor-fight" as that is what it boils down to a lot) or 2) through sheer dumb luck the "CCP early warning system" (Patent pending) didn't tip them off.

Is that the fault of the API, no. It's the fault of game design in terms of discovery scanner/PvE mechanics in WHs. Does removing the API fix that? No it does not fix it and makes finding things to shoot even more of a pain in the ass. Does CCP have a good track record of circling back around to "fix" things, especially WH things? No, they do not.

Other than "grudges", there are no reasons to shoot anything other than "gud fights". No one is going to fight over PI. There are no resource(s) in one wh that aren't exactly as abundant as the one next door. So fighting for the thrill and the sake of the fight is all we've really got. Fighting PvP groups is based on chance meetings and fortuitous TZ coverage. Catching and fighting site runners is based on pure dumb luck, no more and no less.
So while I respect your opinion on why this isn't needed, I'll disagree and instead offer an idea that I hope will incentivize more combat and pilot vs pilot explosions in W-space.

I'm right behind you

Alundil
Rolled Out
#8 - 2014-05-15 05:06:34 UTC
Additions to OP added

I'm right behind you

Sandy Cadelanne
Doomheim
#9 - 2014-05-26 13:39:53 UTC
I like this idea, Alundil you should consider the local reactivation option.
The WH disign is made so no info can be ghatered on a WH until your in that particular WH.
So the dev will never made a deployable that will send his info remotely to another system.
So if you want info on a WH, the SOS should be there when you enter in it.
Why should it be there?
Because it provide info/advantage for the resisdent of the WH to.

So add an option in the SOS to provide a local that increase the security of the résisdent, but add more hack option :

-Get the info of the SOS
-Modify the info of the SOS
-Offline the SOS
-Stop the local chan
-Modify the local chan (ie : make the hacker or his corp invisble in the local)
-...

If the hack fail two time a message is send to the owner and the device is render inoperative for one or two hour.

Creation of new module/skill/ship bonus to prevent (to a certain %) someone from the being picked by the SOS.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#10 - 2014-05-27 16:54:34 UTC
Sandy Cadelanne wrote:
I like this idea, Alundil you should consider the local reactivation option.
The WH disign is made so no info can be ghatered on a WH until your in that particular WH.
So the dev will never made a deployable that will send his info remotely to another system.
So if you want info on a WH, the SOS should be there when you enter in it.
Why should it be there?
Because it provide info/advantage for the resisdent of the WH to.

So add an option in the SOS to provide a local that increase the security of the résisdent, but add more hack option :

-Get the info of the SOS
-Modify the info of the SOS
-Offline the SOS
-Stop the local chan
-Modify the local chan (ie : make the hacker or his corp invisble in the local)
-...

If the hack fail two time a message is send to the owner and the device is render inoperative for one or two hour.

Creation of new module/skill/ship bonus to prevent (to a certain %) someone from the being picked by the SOS.

Thanks for the feedback.
I don't think any residents of a wh system would want a "local" whether it's provided by a module/deployable regardless of whether there are hacking shenanigans that can be done to it. I know I would not. Ever.
Other than that, I think that the ability to hack the module for various purposes would be interesting and create several new potential explos....I mean interactions.

I'm right behind you

Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#11 - 2014-05-27 17:35:01 UTC
Unfortunately this won't work. Everyone will simply remove it as soon as they log in and dscan.

It's a nice idea, and much better than either API data and complete blackout, but nobody will be so lazy or stupid as to not remove it immediately.




Alundil
Rolled Out
#12 - 2014-05-27 19:36:51 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Unfortunately this won't work. Everyone will simply remove it as soon as they log in and dscan.

It's a nice idea, and much better than either API data and complete blackout, but nobody will be so lazy or stupid as to not remove it immediately.





Thank you for the comments. I agree that these will generate explosions - either of the deployable itself and/or of the pilots attempting to kill it.

This is, imho, one of the strengths of the design. There will be both groups who really want this to live and others that will really want this to die. Making combat scanning a requirement to find this thing and making it hard to detect is part of the "sneaky" meta of wormholes and its required covert operations. People good at creating off grid bookmarks (and even better deep safe bookmarks) will be ideal people to place these both for home system purposes as well as for surveillance of target systems.

Keep up the great feedback.

I'm right behind you

Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#13 - 2014-05-27 20:37:57 UTC
Do you mean that it would not be visible on dscan, only via combat probes? That would be a bit better, yes, but no such items exist yet afaik. If that is technically possible, this would definitely be a nice conflict generator.

Perhaps it could also record ships logged off on grid, this info revealed on successful hack.

Alundil
Rolled Out
#14 - 2014-05-27 21:33:21 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Do you mean that it would not be visible on dscan, only via combat probes? That would be a bit better, yes, but no such items exist yet afaik. If that is technically possible, this would definitely be a nice conflict generator.

Perhaps it could also record ships logged off on grid, this info revealed on successful hack.


Originally I stated that this deployable would not appear on the default overview (therefore not appearing on default dscans). It would also not create a warpable beacon (like the ESS, for example, does). It would, however, appear on dscan if a pilot's ship was in range of the module's position in space. Much like mobile depots and mobile tractor units appear now for properly configured overviews. Combat probing would be the only way of locating this device on grid, either to kill or hack/tamper with. Ideally this would create benefits to pilots with good skill at creating deep safes (places not easily hit using dscan). It would also further enforce the need to probe for areas in space away from celestial markers.

If this deployable were to ever be added to the game, testing on SISI would be necessary in order to figure out whether hiding it from dscan makes them too difficult to find for balancing perspective. Initially though, I'd want its presence discoverable via dscan. Based on some of the functionality of the Mobile Scan Inhibitor it should be possible for CCP to hide this module from dscan results if testing shows it's not unnecessarily laborious to find.

Your idea about showing ships logged out on grid is an interesting one but there's bound to be a LOT of "discussion" about that if it ever became something that CCP was considering. Almost like the reverse of the "OOG API kill info" just in reverse. Instead of gaining info from an OOG source, we'd be (techncially) gaining info ABOUT an OOG item.

Interesting though. CCP/CSM/WH Ethics board would need to convene on that one though. Lol

I'm right behind you

Sandy Cadelanne
Doomheim
#15 - 2014-06-03 12:11:21 UTC
Alundil wrote:

Thanks for the feedback.
I don't think any residents of a wh system would want a "local" whether it's provided by a module/deployable regardless of whether there are hacking shenanigans that can be done to it. I know I would not. Ever.
Other than that, I think that the ability to hack the module for various purposes would be interesting and create several new potential explos....I mean interactions.


A local where you can chose to appear or not would be intersting for the residents, but maybe not fair. RollRollTwisted

Maybe a local is not the things that the résisdent could be interested for, but the point is that the module must present advantage for both the attacker and the defender.
You must find what info could be yousefull to both side or find two type of info that could be usefull, one for each side.
Attacker side must be able to hack the module to steal/modify/... the info, defender side must have a way to check if the sécurity of the sos was brocken or not (the same skill or two differrents).

Have you ask some wh corp to know if they think that there lacking somme info about their home?
RcTamiya Leontis
Magister Mortalis.
#16 - 2014-06-03 12:18:31 UTC
If you spend 1-2 weeks with a dram moving into deepspace you can generate spots even in small systems which aint in dscan range from anything, for those circumstances, what do you think is the counter for the defender ?
Alundil
Rolled Out
#17 - 2014-06-03 16:26:16 UTC
Sandy Cadelanne wrote:

You must find what info could be yousefull to both side or find two type of info that could be usefull, one for each side.
Attacker side must be able to hack the module to steal/modify/... the info, defender side must have a way to check if the sécurity of the sos was brocken or not (the same skill or two differrents).

Have you ask some wh corp to know if they think that there lacking somme info about their home?

I'm in a deep wormhole corp. That said, this is hardly a unanimously supported idea even in w-space. To say the discussion around intel gathering is contentious is putting it mildly. This is an attempt to create some new in-game mechanics around information gathering/retrieval and information denial. Possible benefits to the "defender" (or group(s) who lives in that system) could be a) mask/alter data related to site de/spawn b) inflate/deflate data on ships killed or NPCs killed (could be used as false info to either bore someone into leaving or create a trap by making the system look like a farming setup) c) hacking the system might give a very small window of extra intel related to "avg numbers of pilots in space in x hours" (power of this is limited by the time delay the avg is comprised of and the fact that pilots need to decloak to hack this deployable and it can (and will be) killed).


RcTamiya Leontis wrote:
If you spend 1-2 weeks with a dram moving into deepspace you can generate spots even in small systems which aint in dscan range from anything, for those circumstances, what do you think is the counter for the defender?


In your example the obvious counter to someone burning a dram off of a celestial for weeks is to catch them and kill them as they are uncloaked. Is it easy, no. Is it impossible, also no. Goes without saying at this point though that you're probably being sized up for seeding for either a logon trap (yay PvP) or an attempted eviction (also yay PvP). Be alert.

Otherwise, see above possible ability via hacking interface. Obviously if the deployable is owned by the defenders corp/alliance then hacking for this data shouldn't be necessary.

I'm right behind you

Alundil
Rolled Out
#18 - 2014-06-13 21:04:04 UTC
**update added to OP**

Device would be able to detect various types of debris
(detects various base components e.g. t1, t2, t3 and sleeper wrecks are all made from different components and would therefore have very different debris compositions)

I'm right behind you