Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Nah, that's just the way you see it. You continue to refuse to believe that our vignettes pivot around the fulcrum of traditional local, perfect and free, going away. This is a marked reduction in safety and requires significant effort and cost to restore (at least, the way we'd like to see it.)

Feedback:
Anything the Observatory Arrays disrupt in game must also disrupt at the API level or they will be useless.

I'm not wholly opposed to a form of cloak detection, but I think an active player in a cloaky ship should still be able to perform his role of intelligence gathering without being totally screwed by this. This should be very effective against someone who AFKs or isn't paying attention, but not very effective against an active, observant player.



I really don't like the whole concept of gates, and here's why:

They seem like they will basically undo all the good work that Phoebe did to limit power projection, allowing instantaneous travel of massive (numbers and/or ship size) fleets across great distances.

The proposed effects look very powerful, and should really be something given to a new type of W-space systems. Add a Neutron Star effect or something for this. Not only that, but the ability to turn them on, off, or adjust how powerful they are with simple reconfiguration sounds pretty damn broken to me.

Observation Arrays:
Some people say 0.0 is too safe - some people say it should be easier to defend. So I would say it has at least some balance now since both partys complain about it.
So changes should keep that balance - maybe make it sometimes better sometimes worse for the attacker/defender.

To clear the table first I will start from the point of a removed local. CCP wants those structures to be fitted so what about that:

(I think I better show what I mean rather than trying to explain it - See it as an example no numbers are fixed)

An observation Array has two stats:
- Scan range (Start with 5AU for example)
- Scan Resolution (Start with being able to lock on to super-capitals)
Additonal:
- Cloak detecting module OR Ship identifying system (not possible to fit both)

Fitting examples
(1) with Cloak detecting module:
You only know the signature size of the ships out there - so be careful where you warp to!

- LongRange (local): If you fit it for range you would be able to scan the entire system. But basically have no resolution. Add a cloak detecting module and you would have that thing, that is called 'local'. So you would only know how many there are but not where they are. (besides Supers since they are that big)
- ShortRange: You fit a lot of Scan resoultion modules and a cloak detecting module. You would be able to warp to everything within the starting 5 AU Range. Even cloaked ships!
- Hybrid: You fit scan res and scan range with a cloak detector. You won't be able to cover the entire system but you can cover more than the tiny starting range, you can get warp-ins on bigger ships but not on small ships.

(2) With a Ship identifying system
You can't see cloaked ships but can identify uncloaked ships and their pilots. (Act as d-scan)

-LongRange gives information about every ship and pilot in the system - you just don't know where
-ShortRange You know what you are warping into...
- ...

So basically: Scan resolution gives warp ins. And Scan range gives - well - range.
If you are really a carebare you could spam those arrays with minimum distance but maximum scan res in your system - giving you a warp-in on everything.

As a cloaky scout you want to avoid the arrays. Keep your distance and try to fly around them.
I don't know if the scan range should be displayed in the map for enemys or if they should just get a message that they are detected if they enter the range.

But since people can spam these OAs I would propose some countermessures. Like a module you can fit that makes you invisible for ONE Observation Array. You would have to choose then, which you want to deactivate. Then you should be able to hack these Arrays with the hacking minigame (results in not showing you permanent without your deactivation module)

So a strategy for a intruder would be. First deactivate the long range OA try to hack it and then deactivate the others.
So as a defender you would need to make the areas your OAs cover overlap so that you recognize someone at an OA.

I think this would be balanced, as you can still be undetected if you fly carefully through the hostile system. But you are always in danger of tripping into an alarm. If you are good you stay undetected. If you mess up you will get discovered. Seems fair.
A good layout of OAs would also require skill - so both partys can influence the outcome.

EDIT: I don't think that OAs should disrupt any intel. If you do not have local as an intruder but the defender has you already have a huge disadvantage. If you don't have d-scan either you are basically blind. You can't see anything.
And thinking of smaller gangs that need to be able to avoid larger threats - this would be basically a death sentence.

Someone clearly hasn't been paying attention to the changes to "Structure blaping" have they...

-Will these new gates be able to link w-space systems together?

-Will these new gates be able to link w-space and k-space systems together?

-What will be the range(s) for the gate to be able to reach out to?

-Will these gates work in lowsec, i.e. in factional warfare space?

-What kind of ownership restrictions will they have?

5 people should be able to use guerrilla warfare tactics in a system with 50 enemy players. If 50 players can't figure out how to defend, escort, gate camp and just bait the five hostiles in their system that it on them.

Would be very difficult to balance ... also is the plan to change the current balance towards defenders or towards attackers or do you want to keep both in check and increase complexity?

I'm concerned about your appeasement towards the nullbears whining about "AFK cloakers"

I love the idea of making "fast lanes" that have accelerated warp speed between them as a way to move people (and industrial goods) more quickly between systems.

Remind anyone of Freelancer?

Now I would like to comment a bit from the j-space perspective.

J-space is currently one of the better part of Eve. You won't see a lot of complaining from the residents about the current state of affairs. So please consider carefully whether any of this structures fit wormholes, and if you believe some do, please, consult wh groups extensively before committing on a design. The reason I write this is that there is a significant potential for disruption. For example, a lot of unknown in the “unknown” space come from randomness in connections. If suddenly there are gates between j-systems, we are living in a vastly different space. One way more similar to k-space, for example by facilitating massive multi-hole alliances. I'm not certain you would find support for that from wh residents. Or d-scan disruption – indeed somewhat radical idea if it's anything more than current mobile scan inhibitor. Or changes to cloaks – cloaks see massive use in j-space.