Player Features and Ideas Discussion

1. Nope.
Practicing sovereignty is enforcing your law. Someone breaks your law, hunt them down and punish them. Want to block their access? Get on gate and blockade it. No magic-super protected carebear havens.

Definitely can get behind nerfing local and cloaks and generally overhauling intel. And i also think different ships could have varying D-scan ranges.

A goon asking for a safe place to play the game in, gotta love the irony in that one.

Throughout all of history control over an area (sovereignty) has been taken by force and maintained by force and so it should be in EvE, no easy mode way to minimize or eliminate competition for your area of space. To be blunt if you want it you have to fight to get it and you have to fight to protect it from all who would want to take it from you.

Now the gates thing. You want control of the gates and considering the goons past, burn Jita, the Gallente Ice incursion just to name a few this one seems rather odd. On the one hand you want to be able to go anywhere and blow up other peoples stuff using a gate system that is available to all characters. But now you want to have the ability to lock those same gates so they cannot easily raid your stuff and blow it up. Again got to love the irony of that. But in the end I say no to being able to lock gates because you are not supposed to be safe anywhere in EvE and locking your gates behind you when you enter would add an unacceptable level of safety to living in what is quite possibly the safest area in the game, nul sec space.

In nul sec system wide local should be provided by a structure and only the characters in the corp that placed the structure should have access to that channel that would allow for you as defenders to know when someone is in your space but they would have no idea if there were any defenders around. Without a way for the attackers to provide a local type of functionality this would be to powerful so I have always liked the basic idea of a module or perhaps a dedicated ship that could be used anywhere including worm holes that provided the local channel functionality to them but only for a small area of space in the same way the U.S. Military uses the AWACS aircraft.

#3 seems like a solid basic idea, that structure could be the basis for providing the system wide local channel.
I would say that some aspect of it's operation should be automated and constant, while other more powerful capabilities should require player interaction and for the structure to be fueled to make them functional.

You are wrong it is not about having a safe place. It is about creating a game mechanic more logic and more interestening. You must not think about this idea in the game as it is now but as it could be after.
Being Goon has nothing to do with this idea.
Within the things i would change there is also the anoms framing that I think it is as boring as mining and with no logic.
I am agree that defending a system must be an active thing and this idea don't change that.
But to me the biggest problem in the game is that modules, items, and ships, are designed with no real logic but with a gameplay logic.
I don't know if I am clear.
When an engineer create a thing, he have a purpose. The thing must have a mission and must be design to be the more easy to use for this purpose. The difficulty, must be created by another item created by another engineer to counter the first item or by a situation where the item should not be use.

In fact as I see the thing it is more as if people who own a place would not let the door wide open. But that does not mean that a bulglar can't enter.
It is true that if you have to hack all the gate, it would be boring. So the force hacking should be very easy but would give direct intel to owners instead of intel chans that exist for the moment. And don't forget That it would come with the remove of local chan.

That means that if someone who enter in force will be intel instantly but a stealth hacker could enter discrectly, find a target, open a cyno and make his fleet jumping...

... says the person who is proposing an artificial way to keep people out of certain areas of space.


The current system (see: no restrictions on gate travel) is more "organic" than what you are proposing.
Either people defend, or they do not.
Either people travel through null-sec, or they do not.
Either the defenders are successful in repelling interlopers, or they are not.
Either the interlopers are successful in traveling through someone else's territory, or they are not.

Don't over-complicate things for the sake of making them complicated or because you have a personal issue with the concept of "gameplay first, realism second."

Think within the context of the game and what gets players to interact more (for better and worse).
Realism can be added in after the fact IF it does not unreasonably complicate things.


This isn't real life.
Think only within the context of the game.

Blocking access to systems the way you propose is a "no-go" because it creates a "non-insignificant" barrier of entry for people wanting to travel.

And you are correct that is it not possible to have "guards on the frontier 24/7" in the game.
That is actually the entire point.

If you do not have the manpower, you are vulnerable and need to find ways (within the context of the game) around that limitation (rather than try to add new mechanics to make up for this shortcoming).


While you may not intend for that to happen, that is exactly what will happen.

Your idea gives 0.0 alliances yet another a tool (among many) to stall (if not outright block) access for anyone and everyone they do not like.

Frankly... I am more partial to nerfing some of the tools 0.0 alliances use to keep themselves so isolated (so that it is impossible to isolate themselves).


I think you will find support for SOME of those things (I am a personal fan of the idea of environmental effects)... but you have to keep in mind that the game is over a decade old.
There may be some kind of technical and gameplay reason for why those things have not been added in.

For example: there are some missions that will deal damage to you over a period of time. Wormhole systems also have environmental effect. This shows that the DEVs can implement them (at least on an extremely small or system-wide scale).
Why they have not implemented this in more things... unknown.
It may be taxing to the servers.
They may not like the idea of giving "special" advantages to players that are outside of their ability to control (outside of certain "exceptions").
They may be concerned that players will find it too tedious and aggravating for their taste.


Be more conservative in how you approach ideas, think those ideas through (see: give more than simply "I want" and realistically consider how players are going to behave) and you will find that people will be more willing to listen to you.

Well to invade a enemy system, you stealthy enter in the system and open a cyno, a mother ship arrive that deploys a gate. It is how I see the game mechanics. Or you hack the existing gate and anchor a module that lock it widely open...
It is like here when you want to invade a country: you take control of strategic places, destroy or take control of the accesses (bridges, roads airport etc.), or you create a new access to surprise your ennemies (Tunels, road in swamps or in mountains or through forests)

And I am agree that we sould be able to hack the jump bridges too.

In fact, all structures should be hackable with more or less difficulties. It is not far from the Entosis system, but more realistic. Instead random modules that magicly appears in systems the nodes would be sort of anchorable modules used to hack the protections of the attacked systems.

That's true. It will not protect the area you control more thant it is protected today. It is not the point. The goal is to make the way you protect your systems different. Today it is as if you place a strongbox in your house and you let the doors wide opened with no camera.
The idea is to protect the accesses of your house, before puting a safebox in it.
It is all about logic, to protect your country, you don't build a wall around your capital and let all the roads on the way without protection. If you do, the town is yours, but not the lands around.

There is alreday an alt in the system before the system where the guys are farming.

Force Hacking should take a few second no more than 10 s. When you sucessfully hack the door you can jump through but the owners that are in the system or that look in the star map are aware of an intrusion (timecode of the jump).
Stealth Hacking should take 60s. When you successfully hack the door you can jump and there is no alarm.
Of course if there is an alt cloaked on the gate they will know you jump (as it is right now.)

The difference is you can create an intel map, and it is the first step to create a gameplay with a wargame logic.
Imagine anchorable modules that maintain the gate wide open or entirely locked. Fighting for the accesses of a place mekes more sens to me than the Fozzy SOV system.
Of course such modification of the game play need adjustements in many ways. But I don't think it would a bad thing. I think that the Fozzy SOV system is so artificial that is one of the reason of my lack of interest on sovereingty gameplay.

The range for the hacking should be the same than the directional scan.

If you want to protect the access to the system under your control, control the access with player. Setup camp and kill whatever jump.

Earning SOV over a system does not grant you control of the gates in any way, shape or form.

as a ship it could work but as a module that you put down that only lets your corp have local its extremely op