These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AFK Cloaking Collection Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2601 - 2013-10-23 13:52:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Actually, with what I've suggested you'll need fewer alts. Or at least stationing alts in neighboring systems wont give much of a benefit.

I don't see how it will. We'd need intel in the system we are in plus all neighboring systems. Any time we don't have intel there, we'd need more scouts plus pvp cover as we could get jumped at any time. Pipes would need intel or again even more scouts. And since the intel would need to be paid for, maintained, and guarded, while being easy enough to destroy that a small gang stands a chance and offering enough benefit to encourage small gangs to attack it, it would require constant attention.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Quote:
That's not introducing effort to improve the game, that's introducing effort for the sake of it.


This is a conclusion that is totally unwarranted. If an intel infrastructure and turning local into a mere chat channel, then having 2, 3, or more alts wont provide much if any additional benefit. The additional effort is in anchoring an intel infrastructure, defending if necessary, and so forth. The day-to-day things like ratting may entail less effort at least in regards to alts watching for incoming hostiles.
See above, I don;t believe this to be true. And what that quote was pointing out is there's no additional fun of the game being added, just a chore being added to the game because you feel a mechanic shouldn't be as it is. It's not that you want it changed because there's something to be improved, you want it changed just because you disagree with it being automatic.

Let's face it what you really want to do is make it harder by forcing PvP. The big guys will have the infrastructure to avoid it, nobody else will. It's not good for null, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. No promises of +150% ark roids and billion bounty 1 shot frig rats will suddenly make me say "you know what, yeah null should be dead easy to defend against attacks on sov but annoying to deffend against a single cloaker".
Teckos Pech wrote:
You can't defend against a single cloaker? At all? One cloaker is going to cause everyone to dock up and never undock?
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.

I can see by your comments, that you feel the bar for holding sov in null should not require effort to the levels you described above.

I have seen elsewhere, that you commented about how you wanted acquiring sov to be an easier task than being able to keep sov, thus resulting in areas changing hands more frequently.

I must point out, however, that these two interests appear to be in conflict.

That is, unless you want PvP to shift to strictly blob warfare, which by it's highly visible nature can be avoided if desired.
Bear in mind, blob warfare effectively includes any strategy which relies on brute force and / or sheer numbers. It also is easily avoided by any not wishing to participate, making PvP in these areas consensual by default.

There is no such thing as a sneaky / covert / surprise attack, in the system you are advocating for.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2602 - 2013-10-23 14:07:04 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can see by your comments, that you feel the bar for holding sov in null should not require effort to the levels you described above.

I have seen elsewhere, that you commented about how you wanted acquiring sov to be an easier task than being able to keep sov, thus resulting in areas changing hands more frequently.

I must point out, however, that these two interests appear to be in conflict.

That is, unless you want PvP to shift to strictly blob warfare, which by it's highly visible nature can be avoided if desired.
Bear in mind, blob warfare effectively includes any strategy which relies on brute force and / or sheer numbers. It also is easily avoided by any not wishing to participate, making PvP in these areas consensual by default.

There is no such thing as a sneaky / covert / surprise attack, in the system you are advocating for.
What? Are you even reading what you quote?
I want sov to be easier to achieve and harder to hold, yes. So implementing an intel feature that would favour the defender would do exactly the opposite.
then on top of that, solo and small gang player neither have the ability, nor the inclination to take and hold sov, so making them more effective at annoying smaller sov groups furthers the hold of the larger sov groups.
And I don't want a "sneaky / covert / surprise attack". That will do nothing but buff solo/small group killboards, and won't actually add content to null. If you want to have effort added to null, then holding the space should require the effort. Implementing an intel system that gives intel to the sov holder for building some structures, I believe, would in fact have the opposite effect.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2603 - 2013-10-23 14:50:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can see by your comments, that you feel the bar for holding sov in null should not require effort to the levels you described above.

I have seen elsewhere, that you commented about how you wanted acquiring sov to be an easier task than being able to keep sov, thus resulting in areas changing hands more frequently.

I must point out, however, that these two interests appear to be in conflict.

That is, unless you want PvP to shift to strictly blob warfare, which by it's highly visible nature can be avoided if desired.
Bear in mind, blob warfare effectively includes any strategy which relies on brute force and / or sheer numbers. It also is easily avoided by any not wishing to participate, making PvP in these areas consensual by default.

There is no such thing as a sneaky / covert / surprise attack, in the system you are advocating for.

What? Are you even reading what you quote?
I want sov to be easier to achieve and harder to hold, yes. So implementing an intel feature that would favour the defender would do exactly the opposite.
then on top of that, solo and small gang player neither have the ability, nor the inclination to take and hold sov, so making them more effective at annoying smaller sov groups furthers the hold of the larger sov groups.


Ok, so you don't want to require an increase in effort, since you claim this will favor the larger sov groups.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And I don't want a "sneaky / covert / surprise attack". That will do nothing but buff solo/small group killboards, and won't actually add content to null. If you want to have effort added to null, then holding the space should require the effort. Implementing an intel system that gives intel to the sov holder for building some structures, I believe, would in fact have the opposite effect.


You don't want to use structures for intel, since you claim this will also favor the larger sov groups.
That leaves automated intel.

Sneaky / covert / surprise attack enhancements won't add content to null either.
This leaves only Blob for PvP and PvE possibly having more interesting missions or NPCs.

By default, you are leaving no room for cloaking beyond a token presence, maybe dashing through systems doing a headcount or something. Actually being able to stick around over the long term being something difficult if not impractical.

Serious question, do I have this assessment correct?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2604 - 2013-10-23 15:02:12 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I don't see how it will. We'd need intel in the system we are in plus all neighboring systems. Any time we don't have intel there, we'd need more scouts plus pvp cover as we could get jumped at any time. Pipes would need intel or again even more scouts. And since the intel would need to be paid for, maintained, and guarded, while being easy enough to destroy that a small gang stands a chance and offering enough benefit to encourage small gangs to attack it, it would require constant attention.


If there is an intel infrastructure it will tell you who is moving through your systems provided you have put the infrastructure there. And with local being a chat channel, having an alt in there will provide little intel because local wont do it. You'd need to put out probes and scan otherwise. That is too much effort. So you'd monitor whatever interface your intel infrastructure has.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Quote:
That's not introducing effort to improve the game, that's introducing effort for the sake of it.


This is a conclusion that is totally unwarranted. If an intel infrastructure and turning local into a mere chat channel, then having 2, 3, or more alts wont provide much if any additional benefit. The additional effort is in anchoring an intel infrastructure, defending if necessary, and so forth. The day-to-day things like ratting may entail less effort at least in regards to alts watching for incoming hostiles.


See above, I don;t believe this to be true. And what that quote was pointing out is there's no additional fun of the game being added, just a chore being added to the game because you feel a mechanic shouldn't be as it is. It's not that you want it changed because there's something to be improved, you want it changed just because you disagree with it being automatic.


That is because you are over estimating the work involved here. You'll still anchor stuff for JBs, cyno jammers, towers, etc. This will add to that admittedly, but it is a one time fixed cost, not an on going cost in terms of effort. It is a chore to add something to the game. If the intel infrastructure is not particularly robust in terms of EHP then hitting it would always be an option for a gang. Then when the intel infrastructure is compromised roaming could provide more targets. Basically, you build it and defend it...or suffer the consequences.

You are basically admitting you want something that provides you and advantage for free over other players. That is, quite simply, bad game design. It is no worse than giving me (and only me) a cloaking ship that can shoot you and maintain its cloak.

I deleted the last section of your post as it does not appear to be something I wrote.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2605 - 2013-10-23 15:10:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
Quote:
Let's face it what you really want to do is make it harder by forcing PvP. The big guys will have the infrastructure to avoid it, nobody else will. It's not good for null, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise. No promises of +150% ark roids and billion bounty 1 shot frig rats will suddenly make me say "you know what, yeah null should be dead easy to defend against attacks on sov but annoying to deffend against a single cloaker".
You can't defend against a single cloaker? At all? One cloaker is going to cause everyone to dock up and never undock?
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


Okay, no it is something I wrote, sorry when I reply to your posts everything is all mushed up and it is hard to sort out which part belongs to who. Anyway....

I don't see why this is something that only the big alliances will have? You are simply assuming this and not even making the weakest attempt to provide any justification for your beliefs. That is pretty much how you argue, by the way. I believe, therefore it is true. It is extremely a weak form of argumentation.

A smaller alliance with smaller space would have less costs for their intel infrastructure. They'd have less systems to anchor stuff in. So your opening premise is not even supported in the slightest. You then go on about super asteroids and rats that will just rain isk on you for almost no effort....which supports my contention you want a mechanic that benefits you (when you are ratting, mining, etc.) and costs you nothing.

How about this, CCP modifies the client so that if you are in a system ratting you no longer gain that time advantage in seeing a neutral/hostile jump in? They put in a delay in local that removes the benefit for the ratter?

Or are you going to insist on the free benefit?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2606 - 2013-10-23 15:20:43 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You don't want to use structures for intel, since you claim this will also favor the larger sov groups.
That leaves automated intel.

Sneaky / covert / surprise attack enhancements won't add content to null either.
This leaves only Blob for PvP and PvE possibly having more interesting missions or NPCs.

By default, you are leaving no room for cloaking beyond a token presence, maybe dashing through systems doing a headcount or something. Actually being able to stick around over the long term being something difficult if not impractical.

Serious question, do I have this assessment correct?
In part, but your "blobs" conclusions is a bit off.
With an intel system that is owned by the sov holder, the sov holder will have a distinct advantage. So the larger sov holders will have an advantage over attackers. Do you see how this might tip towards large sov holding entities more easily being able to hold their sov?

There are loads of other changes that could be made to the way ships work, and even the way local works, including you not showing on local until you break gate cloak for example. The interceptor changes will also increase their effectiveness. You seem to think the only answer is to remover cloakers from local, giving them a huge advantage over anyone else. That's a really narrow view.

And cloakers are supposed to dash about. Their primary role is scouting. The only ones built for combat are bombers, and they are not very effective at doing it alone. Soon the SOE ships will be out giving them the ability to be used solo without having to covert configure a t3.
If your idea was implemented, I still fail to see why anyone would want to be in a non covops ships outside of blobs if they got to cloak, had a unique intel advantage and were good at combat. What possible benefit would having a non-covops ship have?
You think cloaking is cool, which I get, and you want cloaking to have more advantages, which I get, but you can't just ignore the rest of the game like it's 2nd rate just so you can run around in the "cool ships" being able to do everything solo. That's just not how an MMO works.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2607 - 2013-10-23 15:29:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can see by your comments, that you feel the bar for holding sov in null should not require effort to the levels you described above.

I have seen elsewhere, that you commented about how you wanted acquiring sov to be an easier task than being able to keep sov, thus resulting in areas changing hands more frequently.

I must point out, however, that these two interests appear to be in conflict.

That is, unless you want PvP to shift to strictly blob warfare, which by it's highly visible nature can be avoided if desired.
Bear in mind, blob warfare effectively includes any strategy which relies on brute force and / or sheer numbers. It also is easily avoided by any not wishing to participate, making PvP in these areas consensual by default.

There is no such thing as a sneaky / covert / surprise attack, in the system you are advocating for.
What? Are you even reading what you quote?
I want sov to be easier to achieve and harder to hold, yes. So implementing an intel feature that would favour the defender would do exactly the opposite.
then on top of that, solo and small gang player neither have the ability, nor the inclination to take and hold sov, so making them more effective at annoying smaller sov groups furthers the hold of the larger sov groups.
And I don't want a "sneaky / covert / surprise attack". That will do nothing but buff solo/small group killboards, and won't actually add content to null. If you want to have effort added to null, then holding the space should require the effort. Implementing an intel system that gives intel to the sov holder for building some structures, I believe, would in fact have the opposite effect.


Let me help you out here.

Lucas: I want sov to easier to acquire and harder to hold.
Lucas: Removing local would make it harder to hold sov because of the increased effort.

The two positions you have outlined appear to be logically inconsistent.

Let me quote you again:

Quote:
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


How is it both harder to defend and easier to defend?

Also, you make it out that people will be disappearing from local, but with my idea they'd never appear there in the first place. They'd appear only in whatever intel infrastructure interface you have put in place. And I advocate the only ways knocking that out is either via shooting it or possibly hacking it--i.e. effort. So, that instead of "people disappear from local easily" you meant "people disappear from intel easily" exactly how are they going to do it? Shoot the structures? You'll know they are doing that, it will tell you. As for hacking there'd have to be some way for the sov holder detect such attacks, but it wouldn't be automatic. For example a failed hacking attempt might alert you to the attempted hack. Even a successful hack, but one that just barely succeeded might also warn you. Only a really good hacking job would go unnoticed unless somebody checked some how.

So I'm baffled by this "disappear with ease" stance of yours. You keep on stating it and insisting it is true, but provide absolutely nothing to support your claim. It is as effective as stating that CCP Hilmar is in actuality is a hyper-intelligent turnip and it is true simply because I believe it.

And lets look at the last phrase in the part I quoted above,

Quote:
I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


But that is exactly what has happened with local. Local provides a benefit to every null and low sec PvE pilot out there. Local will tell them it is safe to undock, and give them an advantage over any neutral/hostile entering system. And they get this benefit for nothing. They train no skills, they spend no isk. They get it for nothing.

You once asked I should get an overview. Good question, I get it and it provides no advantage to me over any other player. We all get it and it all works the same for us. Same with seeing shield, armor and hull HP. We all see it and it conveys no special advantage, in fact when you target me you see my shield, armor and hull HP. Now, if I could see my shield, armor and hull HP and you couldn't see yours or mine you'd have a valid point.

Hence the sarcastic comments about a module to undock people AFK in stations. Yes, they are perfectly safe. But they can only see what is going on in system via local. They are cut off from information. Also, they have to undock which puts them at a disadvantage to a hostile already outside at his optimal with his tank, scripts and everything else running. By the same token when I want to use a covert ops cloak, which I trained for by the way...a skill I paid isk for by the way...I have to put it on ships that are not noted for their robust nature in terms of EHP and DPS. And I can't activate any other module. So, it yes it is very nearly perfect safety, but it comes at a cost. That costs is effort (training and isk- for the skill-I had to grind for that) and isk for the hull, the fittings, etc. What can a guy in station do to somebody outside station? Nothing. What can a guy in a ship with its cloak active do? Nothing.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2608 - 2013-10-23 15:29:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
If there is an intel infrastructure it will tell you who is moving through your systems provided you have put the infrastructure there. And with local being a chat channel, having an alt in there will provide little intel because local wont do it. You'd need to put out probes and scan otherwise. That is too much effort. So you'd monitor whatever interface your intel infrastructure has.
But in systems without intel you'd need alts, with the detector module. The same as now, It's no good just waiting until people arrive and hoping you get away, you generally always have a set of +1 scouts when you've got your mining or ratting fleets out.

Teckos Pech wrote:
That is because you are over estimating the work involved here. You'll still anchor stuff for JBs, cyno jammers, towers, etc. This will add to that admittedly, but it is a one time fixed cost, not an on going cost in terms of effort. It is a chore to add something to the game. If the intel infrastructure is not particularly robust in terms of EHP then hitting it would always be an option for a gang. Then when the intel infrastructure is compromised roaming could provide more targets. Basically, you build it and defend it...or suffer the consequences.
But one of two situations exist.
Either 1. It pretty much defends itself with pos gun and EHP, like a JB does now.
or 2. It can be destroyed by a small group.

If it's 1, then whats the point in changing it, since a big alliance could easily jam one in every system with the existing infrastructure. If it's 2, people will keep attacking them for fun, just to cause you more work, while still not being able to take sov from the bigger alliances due to sheer manpower.
Either way the end result is the bigger you are the easier it is to hold sov, just now the gap between the big guys and the little guys is bigger.

Teckos Pech wrote:
You are basically admitting you want something that provides you and advantage for free over other players. That is, quite simply, bad game design. It is no worse than giving me (and only me) a cloaking ship that can shoot you and maintain its cloak.
No, I'm not saying that at all. I want no advantage. I want the current system which gives EVERYONE the same intel, regardless of who owns the system. You want to put in a system that expands the gap between small alliances and large ones, giving the defender an intel advantage.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2609 - 2013-10-23 15:32:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You don't want to use structures for intel, since you claim this will also favor the larger sov groups.
That leaves automated intel.

Sneaky / covert / surprise attack enhancements won't add content to null either.
This leaves only Blob for PvP and PvE possibly having more interesting missions or NPCs.

By default, you are leaving no room for cloaking beyond a token presence, maybe dashing through systems doing a headcount or something. Actually being able to stick around over the long term being something difficult if not impractical.

Serious question, do I have this assessment correct?
In part, but your "blobs" conclusions is a bit off.
With an intel system that is owned by the sov holder, the sov holder will have a distinct advantage. So the larger sov holders will have an advantage over attackers. Do you see how this might tip towards large sov holding entities more easily being able to hold their sov?

There are loads of other changes that could be made to the way ships work, and even the way local works, including you not showing on local until you break gate cloak for example. The interceptor changes will also increase their effectiveness. You seem to think the only answer is to remover cloakers from local, giving them a huge advantage over anyone else. That's a really narrow view.

And cloakers are supposed to dash about. Their primary role is scouting. The only ones built for combat are bombers, and they are not very effective at doing it alone. Soon the SOE ships will be out giving them the ability to be used solo without having to covert configure a t3.
If your idea was implemented, I still fail to see why anyone would want to be in a non covops ships outside of blobs if they got to cloak, had a unique intel advantage and were good at combat. What possible benefit would having a non-covops ship have?
You think cloaking is cool, which I get, and you want cloaking to have more advantages, which I get, but you can't just ignore the rest of the game like it's 2nd rate just so you can run around in the "cool ships" being able to do everything solo. That's just not how an MMO works.

I actually am not cloaking centric, although I understand how you could have that impression.
Many of my arguments, compared to yours, certainly sound like I am the champion for cloaked ships.

Lucas Kell wrote:
...not showing on local until you break gate cloak for example.


Lucas, this is a really good idea here. I would advise you to make a thread to support it.
Please avoid issues involving AFK cloaking, if you do, as that will cause many to attempt to derail this into another squabble.
I would back this, if you make the thread.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2610 - 2013-10-23 15:32:47 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I can see by your comments, that you feel the bar for holding sov in null should not require effort to the levels you described above.

I have seen elsewhere, that you commented about how you wanted acquiring sov to be an easier task than being able to keep sov, thus resulting in areas changing hands more frequently.

I must point out, however, that these two interests appear to be in conflict.

That is, unless you want PvP to shift to strictly blob warfare, which by it's highly visible nature can be avoided if desired.
Bear in mind, blob warfare effectively includes any strategy which relies on brute force and / or sheer numbers. It also is easily avoided by any not wishing to participate, making PvP in these areas consensual by default.

There is no such thing as a sneaky / covert / surprise attack, in the system you are advocating for.

What? Are you even reading what you quote?
I want sov to be easier to achieve and harder to hold, yes. So implementing an intel feature that would favour the defender would do exactly the opposite.
then on top of that, solo and small gang player neither have the ability, nor the inclination to take and hold sov, so making them more effective at annoying smaller sov groups furthers the hold of the larger sov groups.


Ok, so you don't want to require an increase in effort, since you claim this will favor the larger sov groups.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And I don't want a "sneaky / covert / surprise attack". That will do nothing but buff solo/small group killboards, and won't actually add content to null. If you want to have effort added to null, then holding the space should require the effort. Implementing an intel system that gives intel to the sov holder for building some structures, I believe, would in fact have the opposite effect.


You don't want to use structures for intel, since you claim this will also favor the larger sov groups.
That leaves automated intel.

Sneaky / covert / surprise attack enhancements won't add content to null either.
This leaves only Blob for PvP and PvE possibly having more interesting missions or NPCs.

By default, you are leaving no room for cloaking beyond a token presence, maybe dashing through systems doing a headcount or something. Actually being able to stick around over the long term being something difficult if not impractical.

Serious question, do I have this assessment correct?


I don't know if your assessment of Lucas' position is correct, although it seems like it to me, it does sound boring as all Hell.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2611 - 2013-10-23 15:35:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't see why this is something that only the big alliances will have? You are simply assuming this and not even making the weakest attempt to provide any justification for your beliefs. That is pretty much how you argue, by the way. I believe, therefore it is true. It is extremely a weak form of argumentation.

A smaller alliance with smaller space would have less costs for their intel infrastructure. They'd have less systems to anchor stuff in. So your opening premise is not even supported in the slightest. You then go on about super asteroids and rats that will just rain isk on you for almost no effort....which supports my contention you want a mechanic that benefits you (when you are ratting, mining, etc.) and costs you nothing.

How about this, CCP modifies the client so that if you are in a system ratting you no longer gain that time advantage in seeing a neutral/hostile jump in? They put in a delay in local that removes the benefit for the ratter?

Or are you going to insist on the free benefit?
You don't see why a big alliance would find it easier to build, maintain and protect more structures in null? Really?

A smaller alliance would find it harder to deal with small groups or roamers. I'm in a coalition that owns half the universe. You could take two whole regions out of action, and I'd barely notice. But a small group, with a handful of systems, knocking out one would be an issue.
Then when you consider that a small group would only be able to attack smaller groups for sov, since the defender of the space would have an intel advantage.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2612 - 2013-10-23 15:46:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me help you out here.

Lucas: I want sov to easier to acquire and harder to hold.
Lucas: Removing local would make it harder to hold sov because of the increased effort.

The two positions you have outlined appear to be logically inconsistent.

Let me quote you again:

Quote:
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


How is it both harder to defend and easier to defend?
Simple. It would be harder to defend against an individual harasser in a cloaky ship. It would be easier to hold sov, where a group has to jump in at a set time with you holding an intel advantage.
I really didn't think it was that hard to comprehend.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Also, you make it out that people will be disappearing from local, but with my idea they'd never appear there in the first place. They'd appear only in whatever intel infrastructure interface you have put in place. And I advocate the only ways knocking that out is either via shooting it or possibly hacking it--i.e. effort. So, that instead of "people disappear from local easily" you meant "people disappear from intel easily" exactly how are they going to do it? Shoot the structures? You'll know they are doing that, it will tell you. As for hacking there'd have to be some way for the sov holder detect such attacks, but it wouldn't be automatic. For example a failed hacking attempt might alert you to the attempted hack. Even a successful hack, but one that just barely succeeded might also warn you. Only a really good hacking job would go unnoticed unless somebody checked some how.

So I'm baffled by this "disappear with ease" stance of yours. You keep on stating it and insisting it is true, but provide absolutely nothing to support your claim. It is as effective as stating that CCP Hilmar is in actuality is a hyper-intelligent turnip and it is true simply because I believe it.
A cloaker would only need to jump into a system with no intel structures and poof, they are gone. By the time you figure out where they went they would be long gone.

Teckos Pech wrote:
But that is exactly what has happened with local. Local provides a benefit to every null and low sec PvE pilot out there. Local will tell them it is safe to undock, and give them an advantage over any neutral/hostile entering system. And they get this benefit for nothing. They train no skills, they spend no isk. They get it for nothing.

You once asked I should get an overview. Good question, I get it and it provides no advantage to me over any other player. We all get it and it all works the same for us. Same with seeing shield, armor and hull HP. We all see it and it conveys no special advantage, in fact when you target me you see my shield, armor and hull HP. Now, if I could see my shield, armor and hull HP and you couldn't see yours or mine you'd have a valid point.
Read what you have written here. Overview "We all get it". Well we all get local too. Local works the same for all of us. How can you say that local is providing a benefit to null players but not benefiting anyone eles? You say we get it over any hostile entering system, but we don't. We only see it when the hostile enters, and he can see it at the same time. The same as you only appear on my overview when you land on grid, as do I on yours.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Hence the sarcastic comments about a module to undock people AFK in stations. Yes, they are perfectly safe. But they can only see what is going on in system via local. They are cut off from information. Also, they have to undock which puts them at a disadvantage to a hostile already outside at his optimal with his tank, scripts and everything else running. By the same token when I want to use a covert ops cloak, which I trained for by the way...a skill I paid isk for by the way...I have to put it on ships that are not noted for their robust nature in terms of EHP and DPS. And I can't activate any other module. So, it yes it is very nearly perfect safety, but it comes at a cost. That costs is effort (training and isk- for the skill-I had to grind for that) and isk for the hull, the fittings, etc. What can a guy in station do to somebody outside station? Nothing. What can a guy in a ship with its cloak active do? Nothing.
Then campaign for the removal of local from people in stations. Most of us go to a POS, not a station when a hostile enters system.
Oh and by the way, I know you paid isk for your cloak and the skill, epic payout there. Cos stations cost absolutely nothing to put up and hold right?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2613 - 2013-10-23 15:47:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
...not showing on local until you break gate cloak for example.


Lucas, this is a really good idea here. I would advise you to make a thread to support it.
Please avoid issues involving AFK cloaking, if you do, as that will cause many to attempt to derail this into another squabble.
I would back this, if you make the thread.
I don't really feel strongly enough about it to make a thread. If you do, you make it, free idea for ya right there. I'll even +1 it since I don't care either way.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2614 - 2013-10-23 15:50:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
If there is an intel infrastructure it will tell you who is moving through your systems provided you have put the infrastructure there. And with local being a chat channel, having an alt in there will provide little intel because local wont do it. You'd need to put out probes and scan otherwise. That is too much effort. So you'd monitor whatever interface your intel infrastructure has.


But in systems without intel you'd need alts, with the detector module. The same as now, It's no good just waiting until people arrive and hoping you get away, you generally always have a set of +1 scouts when you've got your mining or ratting fleets out.


If you have systems with out intel they are either considered unimportant enough for it or maybe another module needed to be anchored. And keep in mind you'd have multi-layered intel. Constellation gate recorders for example could be in any system that is an entry point to the constellation. So you would not be totally blind.

Basically alliances would have to decide how to structure their intel infrastructure for PvE, PvP and even logistics. For example, a prime ratting system might have the very best intel infrastructure and the systems around it might also. But a system nobody is going to use for ratting or is needed for logistics might not have the very best. Instead players might have to use an alt and probes here to ensure the system is clear. Well, if you are going to play smart that is. We should not be advocating local as a crutch for the lazy and stupid.

Quote:
But one of two situations exist.
Either 1. It pretty much defends itself with pos gun and EHP, like a JB does now.
or 2. It can be destroyed by a small group.

If it's 1, then whats the point in changing it, since a big alliance could easily jam one in every system with the existing infrastructure. If it's 2, people will keep attacking them for fun, just to cause you more work, while still not being able to take sov from the bigger alliances due to sheer manpower.
Either way the end result is the bigger you are the easier it is to hold sov, just now the gap between the big guys and the little guys is bigger.


As I said, there may be anchoring trade offs. Anchor the very best intel module might not allow anchoring other modules either like a cyno jammer or a cyno gen. And there is still the issue of isk. If this raises the cost of holding sov, then it may not be cost effective to do this.

And what exactly is a small gang? Your wording is too imprecise. Is it a bunch (say 15-20) of guys in assault frigates and interceptors? Or is it 30-40 guys in a BS with logistics support. And why should it be completely impervious to attack as you are implying. You seem to really want to a feeling of being secure in your space...which I understand, but there is a limit to that. That is, the EHP and where these things get anchored is something that could be fine tuned. Basically make it "not too easy, nor too hard". Where is that point exactly? I don't know, that would have to be determined.

Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I want no advantage. I want the current system which gives EVERYONE the same intel, regardless of who owns the system. You want to put in a system that expands the gap between small alliances and large ones, giving the defender an intel advantage.


No. I don't see the gap argument at all. The costs would scale, so I'm just not seeing it. An alliance with a ton of space would also need a ton of ratters/renters/income to afford to cover a large percentage of those systems.

And the current system indisputable provides a benefit to PvE pilots in a given system. There is no question about this.

Quote:
There are loads of other changes that could be made to the way ships work, and even the way local works, including you not showing on local until you break gate cloak for example.


Now that is a good suggestion in regards to eliminating the benefit of local.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2615 - 2013-10-23 15:52:19 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me help you out here.

Lucas: I want sov to easier to acquire and harder to hold.
Lucas: Removing local would make it harder to hold sov because of the increased effort.

The two positions you have outlined appear to be logically inconsistent.

Let me quote you again:

Quote:
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


How is it both harder to defend and easier to defend?
Simple. It would be harder to defend against an individual harasser in a cloaky ship. It would be easier to hold sov, where a group has to jump in at a set time with you holding an intel advantage.
I really didn't think it was that hard to comprehend.


Just to focus things a bit. Why would the defender have an intel advantage against a bigger group of players--i.e. a fleet during a sov war?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2616 - 2013-10-23 15:59:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me help you out here.

Lucas: I want sov to easier to acquire and harder to hold.
Lucas: Removing local would make it harder to hold sov because of the increased effort.

The two positions you have outlined appear to be logically inconsistent.

Let me quote you again:

Quote:
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


How is it both harder to defend and easier to defend?
Simple. It would be harder to defend against an individual harasser in a cloaky ship. It would be easier to hold sov, where a group has to jump in at a set time with you holding an intel advantage.
I really didn't think it was that hard to comprehend.


Just to focus things a bit. Why would the defender have an intel advantage against a bigger group of players--i.e. a fleet during a sov war?
...
Because the defender owns the space, thus would be able to have intel structures anchored. The aggressor would not be able to see any players that wouldn't be on their D-scan. The defender would just need to mask part of their fleet, cause the aggressor to commit to the engagement, then drop the rest of the fleet on them. We do it now, it's just really hard to hide the fleets. This would make it super easy to do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2617 - 2013-10-23 16:06:42 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
I don't see why this is something that only the big alliances will have? You are simply assuming this and not even making the weakest attempt to provide any justification for your beliefs. That is pretty much how you argue, by the way. I believe, therefore it is true. It is extremely a weak form of argumentation.

A smaller alliance with smaller space would have less costs for their intel infrastructure. They'd have less systems to anchor stuff in. So your opening premise is not even supported in the slightest. You then go on about super asteroids and rats that will just rain isk on you for almost no effort....which supports my contention you want a mechanic that benefits you (when you are ratting, mining, etc.) and costs you nothing.

How about this, CCP modifies the client so that if you are in a system ratting you no longer gain that time advantage in seeing a neutral/hostile jump in? They put in a delay in local that removes the benefit for the ratter?

Or are you going to insist on the free benefit?
You don't see why a big alliance would find it easier to build, maintain and protect more structures in null? Really?


No I don't. If a small alliance has to anchor 10 intel modules and a big alliance has to anchor 100, the big alliance has an order of magnitude more work and cost. The cost and effort would scale linearly...you'd better hope your income also scales linearly too.

Quote:
A smaller alliance would find it harder to deal with small groups or roamers. I'm in a coalition that owns half the universe. You could take two whole regions out of action, and I'd barely notice. But a small group, with a handful of systems, knocking out one would be an issue.


Yes, I know what coalition you are in...I'm in the same coalition.

And I bet that losing an entire region would not go unnoticed. Renting income would be compromised, logistics might be compromised, and simple ratting income for individual players would be compromised with the loss of even a few of the right systems.

And a small alliance holding sov that is not part of a larger coalition is going to have issues holding sov today. Because they just can't field the numbers.

If anything, implementing an intel system that is separate from local might make guerrilla warefare much more viable and make holding vast swaths of space quite a challenge.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2618 - 2013-10-23 16:16:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Let me help you out here.

Lucas: I want sov to easier to acquire and harder to hold.
Lucas: Removing local would make it harder to hold sov because of the increased effort.

The two positions you have outlined appear to be logically inconsistent.

Let me quote you again:

Quote:
That's not what I said now, is it? It would require considerably more effort to guard against someone that can vanish from all intel with ease and requires a specific module to hunt, while making sov easier to defend. I wouldn't consider that a good or balanced change, and I don't see why a group that already has some pretty special benefits that noone else has deserves even more special treatment.


How is it both harder to defend and easier to defend?
Simple. It would be harder to defend against an individual harasser in a cloaky ship. It would be easier to hold sov, where a group has to jump in at a set time with you holding an intel advantage.
I really didn't think it was that hard to comprehend.


Just to focus things a bit. Why would the defender have an intel advantage against a bigger group of players--i.e. a fleet during a sov war?
...
Because the defender owns the space, thus would be able to have intel structures anchored. The aggressor would not be able to see any players that wouldn't be on their D-scan. The defender would just need to mask part of their fleet, cause the aggressor to commit to the engagement, then drop the rest of the fleet on them. We do it now, it's just really hard to hide the fleets. This would make it super easy to do.


Okay, and if the aggressor sent in a group to take down the intel infrastructure? Both sides would be "blind". Now the fight would be on much more even terms.

And what if there is a small mobile intel infrastructure that is not very robust at all in terms of EHP and could be anchored by an invading force. It wouldn't provide very good intel, but some none-the-less.

And I don't think the problem of not seeing what is not on d-scan is not that insurmountable. After all, probes would still work. And if they are going to dock, anchor bubbles on the undock and when they do undock you have a nice turkey shoot. It would also make having a small group of scouts warping around d-scanning and looking in POS' a viable fleet job.

Granted they could undock a gigantor massive fleet of 2,000 dudes, but if you only had 250--500 dudes yourself, chances are you'd lose that fight no matter what. Heck, with current mechanics the attacker (i.e. the one with 250-500 guys) probably wouldn't even attempt to fight at all, they'd stand down dock up and everyone would go watch television. So I really don't see the huge problems here.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#2619 - 2013-10-23 16:30:27 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
No I don't. If a small alliance has to anchor 10 intel modules and a big alliance has to anchor 100, the big alliance has an order of magnitude more work and cost. The cost and effort would scale linearly...you'd better hope your income also scales linearly too.
It would be far harder for the smaller group to stop them getting blapped though. I've seen plenty of JBs snapped in small sov space, but I almost never see a JB popped on our end. This would be the same. A roaming group could pick an offline time to drop their structures. Now when they log on, they can;t rat or mine until someone in a position of power arranges to ship a new module. With a group like ours, we'd probably have a new one onlining before the old one went down.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, I know what coalition you are in...I'm in the same coalition.

And I bet that losing an entire region would not go unnoticed. Renting income would be compromised, logistics might be compromised, and simple ratting income for individual players would be compromised with the loss of even a few of the right systems.

And a small alliance holding sov that is not part of a larger coalition is going to have issues holding sov today. Because they just can't field the numbers.

If anything, implementing an intel system that is separate from local might make guerrilla warefare much more viable and make holding vast swaths of space quite a challenge.
Unnoticed, no, but it would not really affect us that much. And I'm not talking about taking sov, I'm just talking about a group of griefers setting up shot to harass the locals. It happens to us all the time, and we barely care. Now they would be able to jump into a smaller groups area, pop their intel structures, then harass their members from the safety of their new found super cloak.
And yes, guerrilla warfare. But you realise that's not just used against us right? It's like thee new pos siphons. Do you think that anyone is really likely to get one up in CFC space, then keep it up for a whole cycle? Doubt it. But the smaller moon holders are going to get hit. What we are talking about is pretty much Malcanis' Law.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#2620 - 2013-10-23 16:39:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No I don't. If a small alliance has to anchor 10 intel modules and a big alliance has to anchor 100, the big alliance has an order of magnitude more work and cost. The cost and effort would scale linearly...you'd better hope your income also scales linearly too.
It would be far harder for the smaller group to stop them getting blapped though. I've seen plenty of JBs snapped in small sov space, but I almost never see a JB popped on our end. This would be the same. A roaming group could pick an offline time to drop their structures. Now when they log on, they can;t rat or mine until someone in a position of power arranges to ship a new module. With a group like ours, we'd probably have a new one onlining before the old one went down.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Yes, I know what coalition you are in...I'm in the same coalition.

And I bet that losing an entire region would not go unnoticed. Renting income would be compromised, logistics might be compromised, and simple ratting income for individual players would be compromised with the loss of even a few of the right systems.
2.
And a small alliance holding sov that is not part of a larger coalition is going to have issues holding sov today. Because they just can't field the numbers.

If anything, implementing an intel system that is separate from local might make guerrilla warefare much more viable and make holding vast swaths of space quite a challenge.
Unnoticed, no, but it would not really affect us that much. And I'm not talking about taking sov, I'm just talking about a group of griefers setting up shot to harass the locals. It happens to us all the time, and we barely care. Now they would be able to jump into a smaller groups area, pop their intel structures, then harass their members from the safety of their new found super cloak.
And yes, guerrilla warfare. But you realise that's not just used against us right? It's like thee new pos siphons. Do you think that anyone is really likely to get one up in CFC space, then keep it up for a whole cycle? Doubt it. But the smaller moon holders are going to get hit. What we are talking about is pretty much Malcanis' Law.


1. Malcanis' Law is when somebody is claiming to make a change for the benefit of newer players. I am making no such claim here regarding newere players. So invoking that law is not really sensible.


2. Your statement about JB systems for small alliances suggest that it issue isn't intel, but alliance size and coalitions. Alliance and coalition size may very well be a natural result of the game both with the current mechanics and new ones. So I don't see the issue. In other words, right now the trend is towards big, the idea that you object to separating intel and local because it will lead to big alliances and coalitions is like closing the barn door after the horses have run off.

3. Taking out key systems in tribute could very well have an impact if renting income takes a hit for it.

And let me add, having lots of space and lots of intel infrastructure is going to result in lots of work both in terms of putting the intel infrastructure in place but also in terms of maintaining it. Hitting key systems in different areas could create quite a logistical problem to untangle. And remember you just can't be jumping around when key systems lose intel...it would be about the same as blind jumping to a beacon. Basically, what if the cost scales linearly, but the work/effort scales geometrically? It would act as a curb on the size of the amount of systems people might desire to hold.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online