These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New structures] Observatory Arrays and Gates

First post First post First post
Author
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar
Goonswarm Federation
#161 - 2015-03-25 08:15:13 UTC
Styphon the Black wrote:
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.Ugh

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.


Hmmm? I don't think destructible stations is what "null bears" are into.
Also bye bye F1 Monkeys. I don't see the problem, CCP is giving us the things we allways asked for, it's much easier to lose and defend active space. Roll

Also Right now you can limit wh spawns(I hub upgrades?), and how limiting warp speed is making a SOV owners paradise? Remeber that warping time is the isk when you run anomalies, so every ratting system will rather boost the warp speed : )

Also This "Advanced intel" will not help against Combat probers with interceptors ^^ i have no idea how deleyed local can prevent carebers from beeing tackled.

And About cloky detection, it will work when you are afk, just like combat probing, if you are warping on safe spots, there is no way to get you. so i would not worry to much about that, i think it's making things more fair; and kills the drama once and for all.
Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#162 - 2015-03-25 08:39:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sayod Physulem
All those posts about afk cloaking...

The Observation Array will come with the deactivation of local. If it would not, sov empires would be flooded with intel and this clearly would not result in smaller sov holders.

So keep in mind you have a removed local. Now you want to remove afk cloaking. But this is nonsense - because the whole afk cloaking thing is based around local as intel. If local will be removed afk cloaking won't be a thing anyway. Because you do not need to stay in the system to accustom the inhabitants to your presence. If you want to gank someone you can do it now because they don't know that you are there, or you can do it later. Log off in space and come back. The point is, it doesn't matter if you stay online or log off. Because in either way you are not at the keyboard. And in either way you do not appear on any intel gathering tool. So it really doesn't matter if you have a tool against afk cloakers or not if local is removed...

So I don't really care if you have this tool or not - as long as local gets removed. Blink
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#163 - 2015-03-25 11:42:58 UTC
Somatic Neuron wrote:
I am assuming that gate structures are going to replace Jump Bridges?

What kind of range limitations are you planning on them? Intra-Constellation for T1, Intra-Region for T2, Inter-Region for Faction?

Are we going to get fatigue for using them, or are they going to work as stargates do now?

I seem to recall that the original stargates were designed with the capability to be able to select your destination w/in range when you jumped....is that something that could be added/considered?

Are gates going to be able to be player owned, or is it something that only alliances can afford?

If hugely expensive alliance assets, maybe to allow players (and corps) to own them, you could enable mass restrictions based on size of the base structure?



It's a bit too early too answer those questions on gates - it depends what we are going to do with existing gates, where they're going to lead, how will the work and etc.

One goal we have is for them to replace Jump Bridges though.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#164 - 2015-03-25 11:49:20 UTC
Ulrik Elristan wrote:
The OAs look to me like a huge home defense advantage. Do you plan on having smaller OAs be very easy to deploy (read fast and non bulky) to counter this ?
I'm especially concerned with the cloaky pinpointing. If local is disrupted AND d-scan is disrupted, how are you supposed to get intel without being able to relay on stealth ?


The current concept is to have the OAs be L size (no point having them XL so far, since XL are supposed to be huge space cities), but being fragile. They're giant space telescopes and the price they pay for giving such powerful intelligence edge is that they could become more vulnerable when active. They're not supposed to be homes where player can live, so far we are reluctant for players to moor or dock inside them.

We want to be careful with deployables (S structures), have too many of them and you go back to spam city, besides having to carry a large amount of them around in a cargohold could become a hassle. The way to counter those could be the one explained above, due to their vulnerability they could be easy to disrupt through entosis link / direct damage, but those are just ideas so far.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#165 - 2015-03-25 11:50:43 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Alright so, my two cents about these structures :

- The idea of having a net of structures throughout your space sounds cool!

- As for obscuring map intel, I'd dislike to see a way to create false stats. It would render map filters useless. Instead, I'd prefer either showing the information or not showing it. It would create a more emergent way of hiding intelligence, for instance by obscuring the information of quiet system to make things not-so-obvious as to where true activity is.

- Just bouncing an idea around: What about a drawback if the map-filter-structure is hacked, that makes the system somehow glow on the map? Like, you wanted to be discreet, and suddenly it turns into a beacon for everyone to see on the galaxy map!

- About cloak pinpointing: One idea would be to uncloak people who stay for too long without player input. So maybe a system-wide pulse that with a spool-up time? The more anti-cloak structures, the less spool-up you have. And it warns people in local when the spool-up is initiated. This way, an active cloaker can just recloak instantly when it happens, while a true afk cloaker will.. well, be killed.

- For gates, I find it quite odd to have gates affect the warp speed of players in the whole system. How does multiple-gate systems work? Will a gate affect its companion on the other side? By having gates able to slow down the ennemi, you encourage the concept of "buffer space", something that is highly detrimental in sov null.

- Still on the idea of gates, I'd suggest modules that change the spawn distance from the gate after a jump, and modules that change the cloak duration after a jump.

- Again bouncing an idea: What about a temporary effect to warp speed that only affects ships who have recently used the stargate?



Those are interesting points, thanks for listing them.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#166 - 2015-03-25 12:02:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
Alundil wrote:
Stuff


Interesting points, thanks - however, if possible, we would like to open up as many structures as possible for people not participating in Sovereignty warfare.

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.

A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents.

We may find out later that it may not be wise to do so for whatever design / technical reason, but we'd really like to keep the system as open-ended as possible for now until proven otherwise Pirate.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#167 - 2015-03-25 12:09:39 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Don't you feel that without some guidelines/limitations on range, created gates could massively undermine jump fatigue changes?

Gates are ok, fatigueless jump bridges 2.0...less so. Just imo, of course.


edit: or is there an implicit suggestion that they can only link to "adjacent" systems?
Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#168 - 2015-03-25 12:57:48 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Don't you feel that without some guidelines/limitations on range, created gates could massively undermine jump fatigue changes?

Gates are ok, fatigueless jump bridges 2.0...less so. Just imo, of course.


edit: or is there an implicit suggestion that they can only link to "adjacent" systems?


Power Projection might be a problem. But gates would/should have some drawbacks:

- You need to anchor them (not as mobile as a titan that can also jump itself)
- vulnerable to an attack (compared to a titan in a pos that is safe inside the pos and when the pos goes down - catapult it out by resetting the password or something like that and jump to a safe cyno) So you are more commited.

There was also the idea to limit the range of the gates and let them cause fatigue if used beyond that range (by using rigs or something)
Another possibility would be to make Gates open for all. Or make them hackable.

I don't know if that would be enough, there is certainly the risk of causing the same problem again - but it could be worth a try. I mean timers aren't really an elegant solution anyway.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#169 - 2015-03-25 13:04:51 UTC
Indeed, that was why I likened them more to jump bridges - I'm sure they'll figure something out but I just wanted to make sure it's nor overlooked Smile
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#170 - 2015-03-25 13:45:14 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so.

In theory then people will be able to build 'direct' trade(public or private) routes betwen market hubs.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#171 - 2015-03-25 14:12:37 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so.

In theory then people will be able to build 'direct' trade(public or private) routes betwen market hubs.


Sure, but if someone like say Red Frog decided to build a private gate network, that now allows them to move goods faster than anyone else, wouldn't that then become an extremely attractive target?

With all of these structures there's a group of people that seem to think everything will be come safer and we will end up with far fewer opportunities to "hunt" other players. They don't seem to see a huge influx of new structures, with different destruction mechanics than we are used to, as a huge opportunity for targets. Or as potential catalysts for mutual combat.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#172 - 2015-03-25 14:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselFinance
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.

A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents.

i look forward to the exceptionally large protection fees highseccers will need to pay in order to maintain these gates :happysun:

that said, jump bridges have been one of the 'perks' of having sov for a while (as much as they've been nerfed) so this would require some thought about if you're reducing the value of sov null. can't really complain though while this is so amorphous - just pointing it out as a thing to consider.
Cade Windstalker
#173 - 2015-03-25 15:10:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Sayod Physulem wrote:
All those posts about afk cloaking...

The Observation Array will come with the deactivation of local. If it would not, sov empires would be flooded with intel and this clearly would not result in smaller sov holders.

So keep in mind you have a removed local. Now you want to remove afk cloaking. But this is nonsense - because the whole afk cloaking thing is based around local as intel. If local will be removed afk cloaking won't be a thing anyway. Because you do not need to stay in the system to accustom the inhabitants to your presence. If you want to gank someone you can do it now because they don't know that you are there, or you can do it later. Log off in space and come back. The point is, it doesn't matter if you stay online or log off. Because in either way you are not at the keyboard. And in either way you do not appear on any intel gathering tool. So it really doesn't matter if you have a tool against afk cloakers or not if local is removed...

So I don't really care if you have this tool or not - as long as local gets removed. Blink


You only gain intel from local if you have people actively in that space, which means people are using it. One of the clear things about "FozzieSov" is that if you have the people to populate and make use of your space then you can hold it. They're not getting rid of large sov empires, they're getting rid of the massive buffer of "junk' space that these empires have, almost without exception, at the present time.

Also removing Local doesn't remove the threat of AFK cloakers because the cloaky still sees you on D-Scan and probes, while you do not see him. If he's logged off he can't D-Scan or probe, but he can if cloaked up. Plus someone cloaked up and active on grid is still not under any significant threat, so some kind of system wide pulse still has utility and creates interesting and more dynamic gameplay even if AFK cloaking is magically removed from the game.

EvilweaselFinance wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.

A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents.

i look forward to the exceptionally large protection fees highseccers will need to pay in order to maintain these gates :happysun:

that said, jump bridges have been one of the 'perks' of having sov for a while (as much as they've been nerfed) so this would require some thought about if you're reducing the value of sov null. can't really complain though while this is so amorphous - just pointing it out as a thing to consider.


Two things, one he's not saying that high-sec/low-sec will definitely get all of this stuff or all of the functionality. He's asking a question and saying they're not ruling anything out yet.

Also if it's exorbitantly expensive to protect or manage these structures in High Sec then no one will do so, and therefore no protection fees unless the price is reasonable. It's no more likely that this will lead to a lucrative high sec protection racket than current POS or POCO mechanics have lead to such a thing in High or Low sec.
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia
#174 - 2015-03-25 15:27:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Styphon the Black
In regard to OAs pinpointing a cloaked ship.

I think that if an OA should have to be manually activited to make this feature work and make the person doing it vulnerable. Similar to activating a cyno to innate the decloak pulse.

In addition, I do not think that it should ever decloak a pilot against his will if he is active and flying his ship. Meaning that a pop up message should appear that says you have been "pinged" (or something like that) then get you a 1 minute timer to acknowledge the pop up and keep your cloak active.

Also I think that this ability should be something that can be spammed and replace using probes to find a target. I think you should be limited to using this ping ability to once every 30 minutes or something. Maybe make it use somekind of fuel inorder to activate the decloak pulse.
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#175 - 2015-03-25 15:31:19 UTC
OA and the ship discovery scanner:

In low, null and WH space, if a system does NOT have a OA, all anoms and sigs appear to be the same. Scanning would be required to determine the numbers of the two groups and additional scanning would be required to warp to them. Anoms would be very easy to pinpoint.

If a system does have an OA and if the play is in positive standing to the OA owner, the discovery scanner works as today. If that pilot is not in positive standing the player must scan as per above.

High sec would not be subject to this because of the highly developed communications infrastructure that already exists throughout high sec.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#176 - 2015-03-25 16:03:40 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Alundil wrote:
Stuff


Interesting points, thanks - however, if possible, we would like to open up as many structures as possible for people not participating in Sovereignty warfare.

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.

A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents.

We may find out later that it may not be wise to do so for whatever design / technical reason, but we'd really like to keep the system as open-ended as possible for now until proven otherwise Pirate.


By extension, null to highsec gates.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#177 - 2015-03-25 16:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Interesting points, thanks - however, if possible, we would like to open up as many structures as possible for people not participating in Sovereignty warfare.

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.


I think the fear is that the "risk of having them attacked" will be trivialized in highsec by the same mechanisms currently in place that trivialize wardecs in general. Namely, the simplicity with which a target corp can avoid a wardec. One of the biggest complaints has always been that high-sec corps have no assets worth fighting for, making it always cheaper and easier to simply drop corp and reform.

Without having to change wardec mechanics at all, you could address this problem head on by tweaking the rules around ownership/transfer of these new structures. Add a week-long delay when transferring ownership to a different alliance than the original owner in high-sec. Likewise, if the current owning corp/alliance disbands, any structures they own should immediately self-destruct. Provided these things are 1) useful, 2) expensive, and 3) time-consuming enough to build, it should hopefully become more cost effective to defend them under wardec than to simply abandon them and reform later. Giving high sec corps something to build that they have to stick around to defend would actually be a huge boon to wardecs in general.

What I definitely DON'T want to see is the same mechanics used now for some mobile structures; I don't want these things to be open to attack without CONCORD interference and using only suspect timers. For the small personal structures this is great, but for something corp/alliance level and strategic, it just puts the aggressors at a significant disadvantage where everyone in high-sec gets to shoot at the aggressors. In particular, it balances things in the wrong direction. e.g. structures in busy systems, which are generally going to be more useful as a rule by virtue of being in popular ares, will likewise be far more likely to benefit from "mob defense" under suspect-flag mechanics.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#178 - 2015-03-25 16:15:54 UTC
Aryth wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Alundil wrote:
Stuff


Interesting points, thanks - however, if possible, we would like to open up as many structures as possible for people not participating in Sovereignty warfare.

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.

A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents.

We may find out later that it may not be wise to do so for whatever design / technical reason, but we'd really like to keep the system as open-ended as possible for now until proven otherwise Pirate.


By extension, null to highsec gates.

War decs will be more interesting, and spill over into high sec more than they already do.
Gates tend to be the seeds for gate camps.

The out of corp supply alts could become rather obvious, if seen using a hostile alliances gate this way.
Cade Windstalker
#179 - 2015-03-25 16:26:38 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
I think the fear is that the "risk of having them attacked" will be trivialized in highsec by the same mechanisms currently in place that trivialize wardecs in general. Namely, the simplicity with which a target corp can avoid a wardec. One of the biggest complaints has always been that high-sec corps have no assets worth fighting for, making it always cheaper and easier to simply drop corp and reform.


Part of the reason high-sec corps don't have assets worth fighting for is because it's so easy to prosecute a high-sec war though. There are high-sec corps with assets, but they're big enough to defend them most of the time, and it's not worth it for the majority of corps big enough to deal with them to try, because they have other more fun/lucrative things to do than grind down a POS. See: Eve University, who have been war-dec'd near constantly for going on three years now. The Uni POS has been blown up at least once in that time, but generally the target is newbies who don't know any better and can't fight back, not the Uni's assets in space or pilots who are actually PvP capable.

If it's financially viable to run these new structures in space then people will do so, but that won't be the case for the vast majority of high-sec corps if that means that the various war-dec troll Alliances just end up targeting them, blowing up everything they can find, and then dropping dec, then doing it again if they put the structures back up. No amount of tweaks to War-Dec mechanics are going to change this.

Styphon the Black wrote:
In regard to OAs pinpointing a cloaked ship.

I think that if an OA should have to be manually activited to make this feature work and make the person doing it vulnerable. Similar to activating a cyno to innate the decloak pulse.

In addition, I do not think that it should ever decloak a pilot against his will if he is active and flying his ship. Meaning that a pop up message should appear that says you have been "pinged" (or something like that) then get you a 1 minute timer to acknowledge the pop up and keep your cloak active.

Also I think that this ability should be something that can be spammed and replace using probes to find a target. I think you should be limited to using this ping ability to once every 30 minutes or something. Maybe make it use somekind of fuel inorder to activate the decloak pulse.


I think it would actually be more interesting if the pulse had a nice big system-wide warning attached, but still decloaks everyone no matter where they are. Since you can't re-activate a cloak immediately that means you can force a cloaky ship off-grid for a few seconds by firing off the pulse or they risk getting locked and killed, but if they're attentive and not inside something silly like a 100km ring of bubbles they should be fine. As long as you can't spam these pulses too frequently this shouldn't create too many issues with abuse but allows tactical options to counter cloaky scouts and bomber attacks if used tactically by the defenders.

This adds more move/counter-move options to the current rather flat cloak mechanics while also dealing with the issue of AFK cloaky ships nicely.
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia
#180 - 2015-03-25 17:11:28 UTC
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:


Also Right now you can limit wh spawns(I hub upgrades?), and how limiting warp speed is making a SOV owners paradise? Remeber that warping time is the isk when you run anomalies, so every ratting system will rather boost the warp speed : )

Also This "Advanced intel" will not help against Combat probers with interceptors ^^ i have no idea how deleyed local can prevent carebers from beeing tackled.



If you don't understand how this would give SOV empires an advantage by being able to slow down attacking ships/fleets I will explain it.

Lets say the SOV alliance holds 5 systems all in a line of systems that link one to the other (a pipe). This SOV alliance does most of its industry, ratting, mining, anomalies etc.. in this furthest system from the entry point into the pipe. They have also placed this gates in every system they control. The have left the major industry system uneffected and warp speed travel is normal. However, all other systems they have brought warp speed down to a crawl.

So the attacking ship/fleet at the entry point will have all their progress slowed while trying to warp gate-to-gate. Those all the SOV alliance needs to do is have a spy in the first system at the beginning of the pipe and the SOV alliance will be able to warn its players to dock up or get prepared for combat and camp the gate.

The attacking ship/fleet could destroy each of these gates one-by-one but that would just further the time it takes to get into the target system and also allow for the SOV alliance to get defenders ready.

This is way too much of a benefit for the defending SOV. Especially in regard to small gangs or solo players hunters.

You will never see players ships get destroyed unless they want them too. This will reduce the amount of things blowing up in nullsec and will eventually effect market prices over the long run. Since null will become safer for nullsec alliances to operate. Allowing a stockpile of materials and industry goods since less ships and mods will need to be replaced.

Anything that makes nullsec safer or easier to hold is bad for EVE economy.