These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Black Ops, Local Chat Beacons as systems upgrades

Author
Bender 01000010
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-07-31 06:04:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bender 01000010
What if:

- you make local chat beacons (which authenticate, detect and show every player in - LOCAL chat - of the current solar system) to be an upgrade which can be purchased and can be anchored in your newly conquered solar systems

- you need to place more than one of this local chat beacons in a solar systems, in order to have a good coverage so you can detect and authenticate automatically any player in that solar systems. This have some flaws because there will be blind spots where you cannot be detected thus you can "disappear from local chat" as you left the solar system.

- you could scan with your covert ops frigate for some blind spots in a solar system, where you can warp in that area and disappear from local, because the local subspace beacon don't have coverage in certain areas (like behind planets, certain space clouds, etc).

- Black Ops ship will have the native ability to see the coverage of the local chat beacons on map and be able to warp to blind spots in order to disappear from local chat for some serious guerrilla action.

Later Edit:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
The few months I spent in a wormhole made it plain to me that Local Chat is not the limit to how different that part of the game is.

The OP's idea may be workable, but I need clarification on details.

How does a covops or other scanning pilot locate the safe spots you described?


hmm..
first you scan it and see where is no coverage from the local chat beacons;
then,let's say you send some kind of probe, launched from your probe launcher, you position it where is the blind spot, and you warp at the probe..there i fixed it.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-07-31 06:39:36 UTC
Some interesting idea's here,

I would imagine that thes beacons are destructable and unable to be anchored near POS's. This way small gangs can move in and wreck havoc on local intel networks.

The range on the beacons is short, 3-4 AU so blind spots would be more obvious. Also I would say that if someone is not detectable (cloaked) they wouldn't show up on the network.

That is all.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-07-31 06:55:55 UTC
This is definitely the first time this idea had been brought up. A sov upgrade to give you local? That's too original.

Perhaps a forum search wouldn't go amiss...
Bender 01000010
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-07-31 06:59:00 UTC
Katie Frost wrote:
This is definitely the first time this idea had been brought up. A sov upgrade to give you local? That's too original.

Perhaps a forum search wouldn't go amiss...


I have read all the old Local chat threads,i guess, but I had this idea before reading about.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-07-31 07:02:28 UTC
Katie Frost wrote:
This is definitely the first time this idea had been brought up. A sov upgrade to give you local? That's too original.

Perhaps a forum search wouldn't go amiss...


Yes the sov upgrade has been suggested,

I like the idea of using beacons to interface with that upgrade to create blindspots in the system. That in itself is noteworthy and that is the part of the idea I support, these beacons would need to be destructable. Much like bubbles... also have different sizes to cover different ranges.

As a obvious part of the system only people blue to the owning alliance will have access to this local network. Giving the advantage to the defenders.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Bender 01000010
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-07-31 07:06:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Bender 01000010
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:


Yes the sov upgrade has been suggested,

I like the idea of using beacons to interface with that upgrade to create blindspots in the system. That in itself is noteworthy and that is the part of the idea I support, these beacons would need to be destructable. Much like bubbles... also have different sizes to cover different ranges.

As a obvious part of the system only people blue to the owning alliance will have access to this local network. Giving the advantage to the defenders.


- maybe "Local chat beacon" Tech II can do that and placed in solar systems with very low security (-1.0); and can be limited to show local chat with detected players in that system only for owners and allies.
- If so, make them easily hackable by attackers so they can access the local chat intel.
Maybe the guy who will hack the local chat beacon will receive a data sheet with codes which can be duplicated and shared to his corp or/and alliance to have acces on the local chat in that system on that particular beacon.
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-07-31 09:42:12 UTC
Bender 01000010 wrote:
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:


Yes the sov upgrade has been suggested,

I like the idea of using beacons to interface with that upgrade to create blindspots in the system. That in itself is noteworthy and that is the part of the idea I support, these beacons would need to be destructable. Much like bubbles... also have different sizes to cover different ranges.

As a obvious part of the system only people blue to the owning alliance will have access to this local network. Giving the advantage to the defenders.


- maybe "Local chat beacon" Tech II can do that and placed in solar systems with very low security (-1.0); and can be limited to show local chat with detected players in that system only for owners and allies.
- If so, make them easily hackable by attackers so they can access the local chat intel.
Maybe the guy who will hack the local chat beacon will receive a data sheet with codes which can be duplicated and shared to his corp or/and alliance to have acces on the local chat in that system on that particular beacon.


Interesting development, I would almost like to see that being a Covops Frigate capability, (either that or they have a role bonus) also make the hack available to everyone in fleet that is present in the system. That way you have to locate the beacon, sneak up on it, successfully hack it, and leave before someone comes by to blow you up.

I could also get behind this, this would allow for covert ops scouts to enter a system and hack the local intel, gather info and cyno in a raiding fleet without the defenders knowing. On the counter side there should be a way for the locals to identify if a beacon has been hacked and allow them to reset it.

I would say that the local chat filter be attatched to high sov level systems as opposed to security status, Strategic Level 4 and 5 systems would be able to filter the local chat to only blues being able to see it without hacking. This way it would be more difficult to run passive raids on systems that have been controled for a long time. Clearly giving the advantage to the defenders.

MMOs come and go, but Eve remains.  -Garresh-

Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices
#8 - 2012-07-31 12:34:48 UTC
I was also thinking of making this a sov upgrade, maybe even somewhere written it down here in some topics. I was thinking of this system is interfacing with the stargates, giving info on whoever enter, whatever, minor details.

I think the inhabitants having the advantage is preferable. Currently (don't wanna start a raging thread here, so please dont) thing like AFK cloakers are to the offenders advantage (because the defender never knows when it's active, and when not). This would twist the scene around, maybe even the offender not even seeing the chaps on local, just getting data from dscan. He would have to be active to determine the population and actual activity of the system, which inspires active gaming (and that's good in my opinion).

OTOH the defender can be aware of anyone of the local, and the visibility of the local-intel should be configurable by standings (like POCO accesses, with the standing icons, or like outpost services). Basically this would convert the static local to be a service of the ihub.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#9 - 2012-07-31 13:36:27 UTC
Bender 01000010 wrote:
What if:

- you make local chat beacons (which authenticate, detect and show every player in - LOCAL chat - of the current solar system) to be an upgrade which can be purchased and can be anchored in your newly conquered solar systems

- you need to place more than one of this local chat beacons in a solar systems, in order to have a good coverage so you can detect and authenticate automatically any player in that solar systems. This have some flaws because there will be blind spots where you cannot be detected thus you can "disappear from local chat" as you left the solar system.

- you could scan with your covert ops frigate for some blind spots in a solar system, where you can warp in that area and disappear from local, because the local subspace beacon don't have coverage in certain areas (like behind planets, certain space clouds, etc).

- Black Ops ship will have the native ability to see the coverage of the local chat beacons on map and be able to warp to blind spots in order to disappear from local chat for some serious guerrilla action.

This sounds like something explained perhaps more easily by metaphor or analogy.

The system is a big room, which is normally dark.
Your upgrade is a light bulb or lamp. (Obviously this assumes the regular local chat we have now to be gone)

Light bulbs are the most obvious things, being the source of light that is reflecting off of everything else. It needs to be on the overview like a cyno beacon or other flagged object.

It needs to be highly vulnerable. Something that a covert ship can remove / disable / destroy in under 30 seconds.
(If the locals don't get the hint they have a problem by it popping, it wasn't doing them any good to begin with)
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#10 - 2012-07-31 14:25:17 UTC
Why not go to a wormhole if you want to spend all day scanning systems with cov ops ships and warping to gank people?

Wormholes have very little pvp and the pvp they have is rarely what anyone would consider a good fight. The lack of local has allot to do with that.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#11 - 2012-07-31 14:36:02 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Why not go to a wormhole if you want to spend all day scanning systems with cov ops ships and warping to gank people?

Wormholes have very little pvp and the pvp they have is rarely what anyone would consider a good fight. The lack of local has allot to do with that.

I am fairly certain the wormhole pilots would not agree with you.

There is more to a good fight than running across someone making horrible choices. People making bad choices in wormholes soon find themselves outside the WH in a med clone.

The people who are cunning or clever tend to have the choice on whether to stay. Quite an effective filter, really.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#12 - 2012-07-31 14:41:23 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why not go to a wormhole if you want to spend all day scanning systems with cov ops ships and warping to gank people?

Wormholes have very little pvp and the pvp they have is rarely what anyone would consider a good fight. The lack of local has allot to do with that.

I am fairly certain the wormhole pilots would not agree with you.

There is more to a good fight than running across someone making horrible choices. People making bad choices in wormholes soon find themselves outside the WH in a med clone.

The people who are cunning or clever tend to have the choice on whether to stay. Quite an effective filter, really.



Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to thier own facts. Fact is wormholes have drastically less pvp per pilot and per system than low and null sec.

But what you consider is a bad choice is your opinion. What you call good choices is probably what I would call tedious risk aversion for fear of losing your ship. @ 90% of eve thinks that makes for boring gameplay so they stay out of wormholes.



Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

A Soporific
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-07-31 14:43:12 UTC
I am concerned by this.

Why replace local? It's an essential tool for any pilots in Eve. By fundimentally changing it you fundimentally change everything, and create and even bigger barrier to movement from High Sec to Null Sec.

Additionally any update that boosts defense that also doesn't boost offense is something to be avoided. The balance of power in null sec needs to be fluid. Without that then the end game just falls apart.
Bender 01000010
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-07-31 16:05:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Bender 01000010
reserved
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#15 - 2012-07-31 17:06:11 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why not go to a wormhole if you want to spend all day scanning systems with cov ops ships and warping to gank people?

Wormholes have very little pvp and the pvp they have is rarely what anyone would consider a good fight. The lack of local has allot to do with that.

I am fairly certain the wormhole pilots would not agree with you.

There is more to a good fight than running across someone making horrible choices. People making bad choices in wormholes soon find themselves outside the WH in a med clone.

The people who are cunning or clever tend to have the choice on whether to stay. Quite an effective filter, really.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to thier own facts. Fact is wormholes have drastically less pvp per pilot and per system than low and null sec.

But what you consider is a bad choice is your opinion. What you call good choices is probably what I would call tedious risk aversion for fear of losing your ship. @ 90% of eve thinks that makes for boring gameplay so they stay out of wormholes.

Your fact does not automatically lead to the conclusions you have stated.

The reality of the situation is that outside of wormholes you encounter more pilots being careless. Outside of fleet vs fleet actions, a significant amount of PvP boils down to opportunistic ganking.

Pilot A screws up, or otherwise creates an opening for pilot B to blow them to pieces. This doesn't make pilot B anything more than the player in the right place at the right time.

By your view, the pilots flying more carefully in a wormhole are being risk averse. I put it that you have the cause and effect backwards here, and it is a case of only the careful pilots end up remaining in the wormhole.
The ones who make mistakes, for whatever reason, either learn to be more careful or give up on the wormhole aspect itself.
WHs are notoriously hard to reship back into afterwards. This makes the cost of failure higher than many other areas.

Perversely, it is almost reminiscent of those reality shows where people stay on islands and such trying to outsurvive each other.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#16 - 2012-07-31 17:13:25 UTC
A Soporific wrote:
I am concerned by this.

Why replace local? It's an essential tool for any pilots in Eve. By fundimentally changing it you fundimentally change everything, and create and even bigger barrier to movement from High Sec to Null Sec.

Additionally any update that boosts defense that also doesn't boost offense is something to be avoided. The balance of power in null sec needs to be fluid. Without that then the end game just falls apart.

Local has significant flaws. You can choose to ignore them, but this doesn't make them go away.

The whole AFK cloaking aspect many people keep crying about. The funny part of it, it doesn't actually require a cloak to do this.
You just need local.

You can be anywhere in a system. If you can find one of the multiple ways to make it too hard for others to track you down, seeing your name in local is all it takes to paralyze many systems.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#17 - 2012-07-31 18:01:25 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Why not go to a wormhole if you want to spend all day scanning systems with cov ops ships and warping to gank people?

Wormholes have very little pvp and the pvp they have is rarely what anyone would consider a good fight. The lack of local has allot to do with that.

I am fairly certain the wormhole pilots would not agree with you.

There is more to a good fight than running across someone making horrible choices. People making bad choices in wormholes soon find themselves outside the WH in a med clone.

The people who are cunning or clever tend to have the choice on whether to stay. Quite an effective filter, really.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to thier own facts. Fact is wormholes have drastically less pvp per pilot and per system than low and null sec.

But what you consider is a bad choice is your opinion. What you call good choices is probably what I would call tedious risk aversion for fear of losing your ship. @ 90% of eve thinks that makes for boring gameplay so they stay out of wormholes.



....
The reality of the situation is that outside of wormholes .....



We are now in the part of "nerf local thread" where lots of carebears tell us how pvp works and why nerfing local will only make pvp (something they don't actually do) better.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#18 - 2012-07-31 18:09:32 UTC
Cearain wrote:
We are now in the part of "nerf local thread" where lots of carebears tell us how pvp works and why nerfing local will only make pvp (something they don't actually do) better.

Ad hominem, got it.

I must be a carebear, so anything I say must be clueless garbage. For someone interested in facts, you seem quite ready to jump onto assumptions when it suits your needs.

I would respect your view more if you just stated you disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.
Taking cheap shots discredits your argument more than you realize.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#19 - 2012-07-31 18:17:51 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cearain wrote:
We are now in the part of "nerf local thread" where lots of carebears tell us how pvp works and why nerfing local will only make pvp (something they don't actually do) better.

Ad hominem, got it.

I must be a carebear, so anything I say must be clueless garbage. For someone interested in facts, you seem quite ready to jump onto assumptions when it suits your needs.

I would respect your view more if you just stated you disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.
Taking cheap shots discredits your argument more than you realize.



I do not consider calling someone a carebear an attack. Its just that you play the game different than pvpers. It would be the same thing if I started telling everyone how industry would be better if this or that change were made. (BTW I don't do industry)

There is a reason why so much more pvp happens in null and low sec than in wormholes and local has allot to do with that. Explaining that to someone who doesn't pvp is not a task I am going to take on again. These "nerf local" threads pop up like mushrooms and every time there are people who don't pvp telling us how it will help pvp.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#20 - 2012-07-31 18:30:40 UTC
Cearain wrote:
I do not consider calling someone a carebear an attack. Its just that you play the game different than pvpers.

There is no 'you' defined in this context.

Your assumption that I lack PvP experience because I disagree with you is my point.
You have no way of knowing what I know about the game. Don't make assumptions so quickly.
123Next page