Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Ok so as im huge fan of killing and hunting anything with a jump drive, i thought that i might weigh in with my ideas.

In regards to the fanfest discussions
.

This is no differient as it is now with supers logged into a pos, anyone with a dscan tool can find them,
and you can trace superpilots already through locators, watchlist and killboard history and therefor is a mute point.

Also there should be a risk for not preparing, most of the supercapitals i've killed have been because the person couldnt be bothered to anchor a pos in system and though a safe spot would be fine.

Also what wasnt discussed which i hope would have been is the discussion of placement of cynos next to/nearby the mooring structure.

Whats to stop a group of supercapitals just jumping to a cyno and mooring straight away with no threat to themselves?
Will there be a mooring timer or will it be instant? We can already see a similar issue as it is with people "garage dooring" next to online poses then raising the forcefield, which in ccp's own words has been classed as a exploit.

Surely ccp wouldnt just allow you to just jump to a cyno and moor your super/titan without any chance of being killed.

From what i've heard so faar it seems like ccp is trying to make it alot easier for the casual super pilot who doesnt understand or even attempt to understand some of the mechanics behind the way supercapitals and hunting them works.

Moving a supercapital by yourself shouldnt be a easy or risk adverse task, they should have consequences for flying them and not doing your homework.

Also what sort of placement restrictions will be enpossed upon these structures?
Aslong as it isnt on a gate or station then whats to stop me deploying one in a deep safe far away from any celestial object?

Also will there be a password option for these structures much like pos forcefields or do everyone who wants to be safe need to have their own corp/alliance structure instead?
What about the trading of supercapital/titans if there is no password ability how will the trading take place except for in safe spots?

I have insurance for all those situations though. If my car gets stolen, insurance pays out enough to buy a new one. If my house gets broken into or burned down, i get paid enough to get a new one. If my credit card gets stolen, I tell them it is stolen and I get a new one. At worst, it's inconvenient and my premiums go up a bit. In eve, if my supercap gets stolen, well too bad.

It's ok to have risk as long as there is some way to manage it. There shouldn't be 0 risk, but there shouldn't be insane risk too just for normal activities.

It seems to me that you are of the opinion that you should be able to operate the most expensive ships in the game with complete impunity and disregard to any and all risk. No POS shield means that if you are foolish enough to send every ship at your disposal through the jump portal, then you deserve whatever misfortune befalls you once they are gone. Risk versus reward.

due to the fact you can place these structures *hopefully* anywhere. warp around, create a safe. and maybe you can find a area in a system where you can be almost invisible. and a safe storage for the thing. and like i said. wont question anyone who does things a certain way. but personaly. if i EVER got a super or so i would accualy like the ability to... leave the damn thing and not be stuck in it till the end of time.

Too exploitable unless it can't enclose anything besides ships. Probably still too exploitable anyway.

Would this be the right thread for an idea on what happens to capital ships after they have been destroyed while moored/docked and even when not moored/docked?

that's a nice thought, perhaps when someone codes eve so its design is not reliant on on one ship = one human pilot it will be relevant

it is absolutely true that supercapitals are strategic assets no matter how hard you try to logic it away

Ok. From what I understood here CCP is trying to remove pos shields but is still trying to figure a way to make these new structures work as a shield even if you don't see one - which is quite strange.

Let's point out a few issues and comment on those:

- A supercap heavy alliance will need a shitload of structures when they are deploying (its a pain but.. ok). How are we going to work out the fact that these structures will just make players spend like 30 minutes of their lifes with their mwd's online to be able to warp somewhere due :structures:?

- In the other side, what would prevent a small alliance of being bubbled to **** and ganked? Or at least unable to use anything if there is a neutral alt in system? Today you can login inside your POS, do your thing/jumpout/whatever and you need to be smart enough when you are going back home. Sounds awesome for me and looks balanced.

- Depending on your final proposal, fishing supercaps is going to be really easy. This just invalidate the "dream" of enabling smaller entities to compete in some ways with the bigger ones (or at least have some fun with their toys).

- Assume that some player super is moored and assume that this player is deployed in a war somewhere with his fellow alliance friends. Now assume that he has a RL issue and need to travel or is suddenly in the hospital or whatever.... GREAT. He lost his ship (as from what I understood the moored ship will be 'up for grabs' if the structure is destroyed). This doesnt sound really great for me.

- A small alliance is trying to create some content for his players. The titan login, people get in fleet and they are ready to hotdrop someone. The titan bridge is now up, the titan is ****** for 1 minute, everyone jumps to kill a few targets and.... cyno is up, titan is dead. GF's in local as the small alliance just lost his only titan. Everyone is mad coz "grrr [random big alliance]"

- With the new proposed system CCP wants: the ship nearby the mooring structure to be both invulnerable and not susceptible to huge bumps. Its fine. But its .... sorry CCP... at least strange.




Proposal:

Why don't you create a structure that generate a random shield bubble/ triangle/whatever X kilometers away and just avoid us of being trapped inside structures, prevent hostile bumps due the shield, prevent bumping inside this shield like you have made in pos'es (or not, whatever), prevent attacking (from attackers/defenders) as they are inside the shields, have a visual representation of the actual space that is protecting you or preventing you from attack someone... and just solves a bunch of other general issues?

You can even make this shield only usable by supers if you want to (which ends up being interesting in some ways). You can even came up with a mechanic that could disrupt the shields for X seconds so we could try to bump or do whatever with the people that are ONLINE and inside it (if they arent paying enough attention AAANNND have had time to gtfo).


tl;dr: There are a lot of good things that could be done. Removing shield, at least with the ideas that are up now, isnt a good one.

The problem is that the game is designed in a way (regardless of what people believe or think) that 1 person and only 1 person has ownership of a supercaptial. Even if the ship is abandoned in space, as soon as the new pilot enters the ship he is now the owner. Corporations nor alliances do not own that ship. It is only a lose agreement between players. Nothing game wise enforces supercaptials being alliance assets.

Mooring could be used as a soft-dock mechanic, and scale upwards accordingly!

Certain small structures could provide mooring for smaller ships (perhaps below battlecruiser or any subcap) and no docking.

This would provide a means of placing oneself in relative safety, but also in a conspicuous position and one that can be attacked (ie the structure) or camped. The use here could be in daytrip platforms for mooring a scattering of smaller ships.

Larger structures could provide mooring for larger and more numerous ships, as well as the largest structures providing docking for subcaps, caps and supercaps eventually. Supercap docking could be an expensive upgrade (perhaps to the detriment of something else, such as asset protection).

Mooring has various options for balancing. Mass based (both max per ship and max total), number of berths and undocking means.

Exiting a mooring berth could be done in various ways:

1 - Local invulnerability. Kinda like how you can exist in a starbase forcefield and move around then leave by warping/jumping out no hassle. Within mooring range, undocked ships would be untouchable due to some sensor resonance field I guess.

2 - Temporary invuln timer. This kinda seems obvious as a session change matter.

3 - *special upgrade* Eject berths. Able to catapult ships out at high speeds/into a special warp. Similar to instant undocks. Such catapults may have mass limits, fuel costs or other limitations to make them not the best option.

---

Limited mooring bays I think is a MAJOR point worth keeping around! It gives room for adaptation such as building additional berths or removing other infrastructure for berths, offering incentive to change up the structure somehow.

---

Intel is a funny one. I can see how it can be VERY significant, but then I can also see how not showing the ships is basically docking. In this manner, I'd suggest moored ships cease existing in space if the owner logs off (like how ships in a forcefield work). With regards to limited mooring space, the berth can close up to demonstrate it is in use (imagine the ship is taken inside... yes I know that's docking, this is different somehow) and to explain why one might not be able to moor up.

I look forward to how you intend to proceed here, CCP.