These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Replacing Local

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ll Kuray ll
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#41 - 2013-12-16 14:16:01 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
ll Kuray ll wrote:
It's almost like an ideal opporunity for some sort of mobile unit. a mobile unit in a system will open up a chat window to those in corp/alliance. Each system that contains a mobile unit will report any intel to this chat channel. Mobile unit can be placed anywhere in system and will provide intel to the owners. Unit is a small destoyable item (no reinforce) and has small HP.

Intention is to create bring back the hit and run fleets.
Replace local and the number of intel channels
Provides corps/alliances at war intel on targets
Provides SOV holding alliances info on incursions
Provides attacking fleets positions of ratters/miners and also numbers in system perhaps
Can be although not inclusive to, placement in a pos

Perhaps unit also has a timer? higher anchoiring skill increases duration of unit... meaning the actual gathering of intel becomes a task.

This is basically an automated sensor buoy.

I would spin it to be divided into two types, an active that broadcast sensor energy for more information, in exchange for being easily spotted as a beacon you could warp to and destroy...
Vs a passive one, that relied on things entering grid with it, or detecting energy broadcast by others using active type detection methods.


Like that idea.
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-12-16 19:19:22 UTC
Thank you all for your continued contribution to this thread. Especially Nikk Narrel and Arwen Ariniel

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#43 - 2013-12-17 18:16:33 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
Thank you all for your continued contribution to this thread. Especially Nikk Narrel and Arwen Ariniel


Just caught up on the ideas presented. Lots of interesting ideas, and lots of possibilities here.

Great work guys.

And I also like the great attitudes.

"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
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#44 - 2013-12-17 19:29:39 UTC
I've always supported getting rid of local in null sec and replacing it with the seldom used constellation chat so you know there's people about but you don't know (without d-scan and intel) exactly where they are in a given constellation.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2013-12-17 19:33:11 UTC
"•Local chat to operate as in Wormholes - suggested several times "

I would like to see a graduated shift to wormhole local : leave hi-sec local like it is... in low sec only remove the cloaked... in null sec use the wormhole model.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#46 - 2013-12-21 23:28:30 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
The first level of access should give you the last 15 minutes of activity (the length of a criminal flag) and should be very easy to obtain for t2 Recon hulls. I also think sov-holding alliances should have free access to the gate and station logs of their own systems, probably from the Infrastructure Hub.



Do you envisage higher levels of access and would they hold older records or more information on the last 15 minutes?

"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
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-12-21 23:30:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tryaz
Teckos Pech wrote:
Tryaz wrote:
The first level of access [...]


Do you envisage higher levels of access and would they hold older records or more information on the last 15 minutes?


Yes I think so, holding older records. Perhaps going as far back as the last downtime

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#48 - 2013-12-21 23:33:35 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
I've always supported getting rid of local in null sec and replacing it with the seldom used constellation chat so you know there's people about but you don't know (without d-scan and intel) exactly where they are in a given constellation.


Wouldn't this be a substantial boost for AFK cloaking and even possibly active cloaking?

"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
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2013-12-21 23:38:55 UTC
That's definitely something people are worried about Teckos. The counter argument I've heard proposed is that if you widen the scope of Local (in terms of distance) you force people to deal with a certain amount of traffic and thereby lessen the power of AFK cloaking because people will prettly quickly just learn to get on with it. What do you think?

PS. thanks for your interest in this thread

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#50 - 2013-12-22 05:34:25 UTC
Tryaz wrote:
That's definitely something people are worried about Teckos. The counter argument I've heard proposed is that if you widen the scope of Local (in terms of distance) you force people to deal with a certain amount of traffic and thereby lessen the power of AFK cloaking because people will prettly quickly just learn to get on with it. What do you think?

PS. thanks for your interest in this thread


I guess it depends on how people do their risk-reward calculus. I've been told that PvE pilots default to assuming the guy cloaked in system is always there and poses a threat. Switching this over to constellation wide chat if PvE pilots default to the guy being active and in their system, then they'll dock up.

Of course, one guy can't be in every system in a constellation, so a more reasonable approach would be to rational risk-reward calculus....but then people don't always do what is most rational.

"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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#51 - 2013-12-22 14:51:57 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Tryaz wrote:
That's definitely something people are worried about Teckos. The counter argument I've heard proposed is that if you widen the scope of Local (in terms of distance) you force people to deal with a certain amount of traffic and thereby lessen the power of AFK cloaking because people will prettly quickly just learn to get on with it. What do you think?

PS. thanks for your interest in this thread


I guess it depends on how people do their risk-reward calculus. I've been told that PvE pilots default to assuming the guy cloaked in system is always there and poses a threat. Switching this over to constellation wide chat if PvE pilots default to the guy being active and in their system, then they'll dock up.

Of course, one guy can't be in every system in a constellation, so a more reasonable approach would be to rational risk-reward calculus....but then people don't always do what is most rational.

The frequently heard complaint recently heard, was that local was being spoofed by AFK cloaking.

This had the impact, VERY specifically, on those pilots who refused to undock with a hostile presence. They would not take chances with an unknown factor, and considered adapting defensively to be pointless.
Pilots who were willing to risk activity, on the other hand, found this challenging.
Pilots who sometimes owned second accounts, and set up cloaking to scare away supposedly friendly competition, were also making bank on it.

What? Never heard of that second one?

Welcome to EVE, the grand sandbox, where betrayal and metagaming are features even CCP advertises it with.

How it works:
You are in a large alliance.
Your space has limited mining or ratting opportunities, and your alliance mates are either too numerous, or simply log on before you have a chance to get enough to satisfy you.
You get that second account. You either buy a notorious ganker, (what? people sell these once they get a bad reputation? REALLY?), or you just make one of your own.
You steal time from your life, set the alarm, whatever. You log in your new cloaker into the system of your choice. Make sure its a good safe spot.
Mention in alliance forums / chats how you heard this guy was the scout or cyno agent for whatever nasties are popular.
Heck, set yourself up for a token gank if it helps.
A scarecrow isn't effective if it doesn't scare the crows away.

When you log in later, leave the big bad in position.
Curse and complain in chat, and talk about how you share the pain of lost opportunity mining or ratting.
Mine and rat like crazy.

On a side detail, having the scarecrow up can possibly cause real problems to go elsewhere, since they will observe this space is already camped. Honor among thieves, etc...

And now you know.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
supernova ranger
The End of Eternity
#52 - 2013-12-22 14:59:11 UTC
The solution is to remove peoples names from local when they are cloaked and only add them back in when they talk. Of course the cloakys can still watch local but this way null-bears probably won't be aware of them and likewise couldn't complain about them.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#53 - 2013-12-22 16:38:45 UTC
supernova ranger wrote:
The solution is to remove peoples names from local when they are cloaked and only add them back in when they talk. Of course the cloakys can still watch local but this way null-bears probably won't be aware of them and likewise couldn't complain about them.
Brilliant idea. Kill off PVE in null, and thus kill off PVP in null.
I like it.

Don't worry though, Nikk will still mine in a venture, so all those titans and stations will still get built... Apparently.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#54 - 2013-12-23 00:13:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
supernova ranger wrote:
The solution is to remove peoples names from local when they are cloaked and only add them back in when they talk. Of course the cloakys can still watch local but this way null-bears probably won't be aware of them and likewise couldn't complain about them.
Brilliant idea. Kill off PVE in null, and thus kill off PVP in null.
I like it.



Admittedly there is some truth to this, make the risk-reward calculus skewed too much towards the risk end of the spectrum, then it could reduce null sec PvE (ratting, mining, exploration, etc.) too much.

While the above changes for the directional scanner are good, "removing" local in the sense that it stops reporting people in system could be too much, as per this article,

http://themittani.com/features/dont-touch-local

It does raise a valid point regarding local. Remove it and making the risk-reward calculations might be too difficult or could lead to a result where lots of PvE pilots leave null.

Also the issue regarding deploying capitals, super capitals, etc.

The ideas here in this thread strike me as a good start, but not sufficient.

Edit: I'll go even further, there could be a "tipping point" where if life in null becomes too risky then all PvE might flee to high sec, and that tipping point might not be that extreme. After all, missions in high sec with a banal T2 fitting are pretty safe and can be done semi-AFK. Make null too risky and high sec could become extremely attractive, relatively speaking.

"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
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2013-12-23 01:23:40 UTC
the only problem i have with replacing or removing local is the information from the starmap. It can tell you a lot of things that you really shouldnt be able to know as a hostile entity, without actually being there yourself. My favorite examples are: sovreignty levels (including indy and military), NPCs killed, and number of people active in system (that one could be chjanged a bit without removing it completely). I feel that at least in nullsec, this information should not be as availible to everyone with a map browser (which is everyone).
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#56 - 2013-12-23 01:39:23 UTC
Rowells wrote:
the only problem i have with replacing or removing local is the information from the starmap. It can tell you a lot of things that you really shouldnt be able to know as a hostile entity, without actually being there yourself. My favorite examples are: sovreignty levels (including indy and military), NPCs killed, and number of people active in system (that one could be chjanged a bit without removing it completely). I feel that at least in nullsec, this information should not be as availible to everyone with a map browser (which is everyone).


In the sense of "free intel is not good" you are correct, but given that FCs often rely on things like local to tell if somebody is about to drop the hammer on them, removing all "free intel" sources could be too extreme. The "free intel" sources that I see in game are:

Local,
Contacts list,
In game map (i.e. avg. number of active pilots)
Dotlan's data (granted this one is not in game, but it does rely on game data and is very handy)

Note: "Free" is not meant to imply effortless, but that it is a source of intel available to all players at extremely low or zero cost. You have to spend nothing on local, for example, even though watching local closely while ratting is at least an expenditure in effort.

Don't get me wrong, I love alot of the ideas in this thread. Just not convinced it is sufficient to keep people wanting to do PvE in null. Or to put it another way, the ideas in this thread would be welcome changes to the game (provided they don't impact server performance), but while they are good they might not go far enough.

"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
fudface
ACME-INC
#57 - 2013-12-23 09:21:01 UTC
local in null? get rid of it, hack it or make it like wormholes

local in losec? hack it, destroyable local transponders, discontinuous coverage.

local in hisec should be left as it is. thats why its hisec.

you want to operate in hisec then you have to work around the rules. dont like it move to losec.

my 2 isk worth
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-12-23 09:24:03 UTC
Great discussion going on here guys, sorry I've been absent, I had to do this annoying thing called sleep Sad Eve is not real Sad As a player who mostly doesn't PvE, and when he does it's in Low-sec where the presence of other hostiles is just a given, I'm fascinated by the discussion around AFK cloaking, local and null-sec PvE.
I have this to submit for the consideration of the group: what if the quantity of PvE opportunities scaled with the population of the Null-sec space (a little off topic I know but bare with me)?
After all I find it hard to believe that a player Alliance holds sovereignty over a constellation when there is <5 capsuleers in it the majority of the time but several dozen anomalies and countless tens of belt rats. Surely that becomes Faction NPC space?

I digress, my point is: if you stop encouraging ratters to spread out, chopping the number of PvE opportunities in low populion Null, you decrease the power/relevance of AFK cloaking (or the presence of one hostile in Local).
I'm not exactly sure what the wider impact to the game would be, apart from a shortage of faction mods, if Null-sec ratters docked up anyway? My understanding is - correct me if I'm wrong - that they just blitz these sites for the bounties, bpcs and faction mods leaving hundreds of unsalvaged, unlooted wrecks lying around: resources that would actually be felt if they made their way back to high-sec.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I love alot of the ideas in this thread. Just not convinced it is sufficient to keep people wanting to do PvE in null. Or to put it another way, the ideas in this thread would be welcome changes to the game (provided they don't impact server performance), but while they are good they might not go far enough.


Teckos, I suspect I've got the wrong end of the stick here but are you saying that your agenda is to dissuade people from wanting to PvE in null?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Tryaz
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2013-12-23 09:26:12 UTC
fudface wrote:
local in null? get rid of it, hack it or make it like wormholes

local in losec? hack it, destroyable local transponders, discontinuous coverage.

local in hisec should be left as it is. thats why its hisec.

you want to operate in hisec then you have to work around the rules. dont like it move to losec.


Bam, bam, bam! Love the punchy delivery style Big smile I really like the idea of discontinuous coverage in Low-sec, I'll ad it to the OP. Can you elaborate on your idea of Local transponders?

Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-12-23 09:31:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
I've always supported getting rid of local in null sec and replacing it with the seldom used constellation chat so you know there's people about but you don't know (without d-scan and intel) exactly where they are in a given constellation.


Wouldn't this be a substantial boost for AFK cloaking and even possibly active cloaking?



I dont knoiw how somethign can be a boost to an activity with ZERO effect. Zero multiplyed by anythign is still zero.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"