Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Right now you get flawless intel that hostile players can do nothing about. There is no way for a hostile player to do anything to local without really doing something very bad™. Further you get it for precisely zero in game effort.*

So even if the new intel mechanic can give you flawless intel it will come with costs and trade offs. For example, you may not want flawless intel in every system because then maybe you can't anchor certain structures that are desirable. Also, there is the cost involved as well. If you have a large number of systems and the costs are steep enough no alliance will set up perfect intel in every system. And if they are structures that can be destroyed or hacked, then that creates new possibilities as well. Simply docking up and hiding when a hostile comes into system may have adverse consequences.**

Lucas, we have been over the local-AFK cloaking connection a many, many times. How exactly does an AFK cloaked player have the impact every one whines about in just about every thread I've linked on the first page? He appears in local, yet is not scannable. No local, no AFK cloaking. No local, also means you face risk. No local, in my view, probably means you face too much risk (for the rewards) and it would be bad™. Hence, no more local-intel connection and add intel as a separate mechanic.

Yes, you could introduce new probes to scan cloaked ships and leave everything else the way it is. However, that nerfs active cloakers. It also reduces the risk of null security space with very little effort and is a buff to null PvE. Game balance also is about risk vs. reward. Nerf the risk and you will very likely see a nerf to the rewards as well.

As for high sec it can stay alot like it is. That is any system 0.5 and higher can have the very best intel the new mechanic would allow and for free, as it is the Gallente, Caldari, Minmatar, and Amarr empires pay for (although maybe a tax increase on NPC corps could be implemented to support this).

As for fleet combat, you already know about the adashboard feature, and d-scan would still work. And defenders could use the intel mechanic for their benefit, something the attacker does not have. Maybe even include a mobile intel structure that can be anchored by a hostile invader. Could make for more interesting fleet combat.

But for you, it is just, "No, no, no, no! Nothing else will ever work!"

*Yes, yes I know you have to sit there and stare at local, but that is not what I'm talking about, in game you expend zero resources for local. No isk is spent for local. No structures are anchored for local. No modules put on your ship. Nothing. In terms of the game you expend zero effort for local.

**Please note the conjunction in that sentence, docking up and hiding. If you dock up to switch to a more combat capable ship, scanning ship, etc. that is not hiding.

Regarding combat ships in station: you can't tell that now even with the infallible and instant intel provided by local already. I don't get why you are going on about this one. It makes no sense. You want even more intel for free? That's a hoot considering what you wrote here.

As for a POS shield, D-scan works awesome. Once cloaked recon and the adashboard facility and you got even better intel than local currently provides.

As for the structure, it wouldn't have to have lots of EHP, that is an assumption of yours. I'd make it so that even a smallish gang could destroy it. None of this reinforced/incapped business. Or if it does become reinforced/incapped it stops providing intel, or only a very basic level of intel.

Stop assuming things that would make such a change impossible. Its silly.



Oh for God's sake.

Really?

Did I not just write about how to detect cloaked ships with probes, maybe a new ship, or a POS module, maybe several of those or even all of them? So, even if I do AFK cloak, and you saw me in system via the intel mechanic and then probbed me down, I'd be dead and waking up in whatever station I have my clone set at.

Think about that.

Really, you ignore parts of people's posts you don't like. Make unwarranted assumptions that help shore up your conservative position. And you make statements that are exaggerations (e.g. it would hamper fleet combat).




No Lucas, go back and re-read some of your posts. You've clearly indicated that any change at all to local would be horrible and local should never ever be touched. If you care to change from that position, fine, but that is the position you have currently staked out.

Edit: Post Updated rather extensively.

What? You mentioned specifically ships at a POS during fleet level combat. Now you shift your conditions. I'll just assume you conceded my previous response as being correct and that your objection concerning fleet combat and a POS was incorrect.

As for not being at a celestial or at a deep safe:

You want intel for free and to not have to work for it? I find that hilarious given this.

As for a safe that is 20 AU from any celestial, scanner probes is a solution. Yeah, you'd have to work for it.

Deep safes, i.e. safes way out side the system, IIRC were removed from the game.

I know you don't JUST want to nerf local, but nerfing local is part of what you want. And you want to replace it with more complex mechanics that break fleet combat while leaving most of null effectively the same, albeit more expensive. and I don;t see being able to probe down a cloaker as a nerf to cloaks. If the cloakers just travels in any direction, probing him out would land you where he was, not where he is. even doing the double bookmark aligning trick would need you to be faster than him and would give you only a fraction of a chance to run into him.
In most situation the cloaker would be far far far better off. If they made that change, I'd trade in most of my combat ships for cloakers, because they would simply be the only sensible choice.

I think you are mixing quotes here. Without d-scan players in a pos shield would not be visible on local, according to your link in your sig, thus not giving you an idea of how many players are about. You would have to move in range of each pos (some systems having HUGE ranges) and compile the data into an external tool, hoping nobody has moved between scans.

No, I want to maintain the level of intel as it is. You say it's too much, I disagree. I think any change to the level of intel would result in too big a change. I do not want a change that suddenly gives a single group a massive advantage over everyone else. I don;t understand how you don;t get that. It's a simple concept.
On the linked post, I don't want people who can be mistaken for a better ship given a bigger advantage that unique hulls or ships that share hulls but are similar enough to ignore the difference. This would unbalance the game in favor of a few hulls, and for what? What gain does it give? What does it add to the game as a whole? It only adds to a single groups playstyle.

You are really over simplifying the details about possible intel mechanics.

This is EVE, not rock paper scissors.

We have trade offs and teamwork, and rarely in the same combinations against an opponent as they have.
Mastering a set of skills will have a trivial chance of duplicating what we have now, because you won't be duplicating the other factors involved.

If you get a die-hard scout, they will detect more than any other player if they prepare correctly.
But they won't engage you at all. Their ship is too compromised in every other way but the ability to detect.

If they have a compromised fit, then they have a mediocre second option in exchange for diminishing their ability to scan.
They might point or pop a cyno, but they will have a harder time finding you.

If you put up a compromised fit, you can PvE effectively, but not as much as a min-max fitting could. On the other hand, you have a much better chance at survival than that min-max fitting would.

If you expect rain, wear a rain coat. If you expect points, fit stabs. If you expect small ships racing up to you, fly a bigger one with smart bombs. If you expect big ships trying to out fight you, get in a small fast ship and evade them.
Will you be RIGHT about what you expect? Improbable with so many options, but you can make a best guess, while they come at it from the reverse direction too.

Measure and counter-measure. Why shouldn't we have better options we can earn, instead of absolute mechanics that produce stalemates?

First off, it opens up the possibility that it can be countered.
Second, it demands an effort to place at all, and don't pretend that these won't be priority targets.

If you can shut down local across every border system your opponent has, before a strike, you can use misdirection at your leisure. If you can do that to multiple opponents, they could strategically compromise themselves in the haste to protect their individual assets.
Maybe they will stand firm, and simply be a little less focused on their objective due to worry over home systems being attacked.

It is a destabilizing element.

Nice tread. Also got annoyed by AFK cloaking in system...

My view: temporary decloak for about 5-7 minutes, every 2-2.5 hours. If player is online he can instantly cloak back. If not he gets decloaked for about 5-7 mins after that period automatically cloaks back.
Could be caused by anything: space fluctuations, magnetic fields, explosions on sun, etc.

There is your problem Lucas, you make unwarranted assumptions. You say, "small gang" and assume that it would die or be incapped so fast an alliance/coalition could not respond. But we haven't defined anything here and you assume the worst to shore up your position. Maybe that "small gang" has to be 20-40 guys in tier 3 battle cruisers? A good bombing run could take them down and oh...they wont know the bombers are there because they wont see them in local.

You wont even consider alternatives. You are ultra-conservative. Fine. Lets run with that. Zero change. None. Cloaks always work as they have and local is untouched. When an AFK cloaker shows up in one of your systems you use, STFU. It is what I'd advocate for anyways until a better intel system is in place anyways. And the implicit increase in risk that carries with it works for me just fine.

Oh, and yeah. The high sec vs. null sec risk/rewards issue? You don't think it has anything to do at all with the current state of null PvE? I see people talking all the time about how null is in many ways safer. No war targets to worry about. No suicide gank squad going to land in your mission. No putz going to show up and steal the mission item. Yeah, maybe you have an AFK cloaker to deal with in null, but you move over a system or two and you are back at it. v0v

What?
Try reading bro.
I commented that there are TWO WAYS it could go down, one involving the structure being able to be knocked out by a small gang, the other with a structure being like a JB is now. If the structure was unable to be easily broken down, then HOW does it help the little guy get kills?
20-40 guys in battle cruisers don't need to kill intel to get kills. They currently get plenty. The crying from the gankers here is that they can;t catch miners solo in their covops ships. That has no bearing whatsoever on a 20-40 man gang.

I've already said time and again that I'm happy to consider an idea that's balanced but you keep presenting THE SAME IDEA. It's not going to get better on it's own. It's the same idea I've disagreed with all along, no matter how much you reword it.

The fact that you simply think null PVE has no barriers is a joke. We simply overcome them, the same way a missioner in high sec overcomes his. You will never be happy unless you see an alliance having to spend thousands of man hours to keep PVE going. Well guess what mate, it's a game, not a career. If you want to do it as a job, be my guest, but CCP aren't going to kill off all fun for tens of thousands of players just so you can get your easy kills.

You can keep banging on about how easy null has it while you ***** and whine that you want it easy. At the end of the day it boils down to you not liking that a larger group of players performs better than you. Well that's the way it works. The more you work with others, the more you can do. You don't want to work with others, so tough luck buddy.

The intel structure is the effective BLOCK to small gang activities.
With a little preparation, and assuming it provides intel comparable to current local, it would prevent any hostile force from being able to attack any local pilot without the local first screwing up.
The larger fleet is NOT after local pilots, except as targets of opportunity. They are there to reinforce structures, and guard the heavy hitters they brought for that purpose.


Easily sneak up on... Yes, because the fact the intel structure is destroyed would not be an amazing clue that hostiles were active.

Come on, Lucas, having the effort to put it back up, maybe even defend it as needed... this seems too much effort?