Player Features and Ideas Discussion

About the "pinpoint cloak users"

I recommend the reading of the AFK Cloaking Thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=397030

D-scan disruption we already have that don't we?

I'm fairly sure that the D-Scan disruption is meant as a system wide effect, which is something we don't have yet.

Observatory Arrays, OA, could provide or modify lots of information or features about a solar system. This post isn’t touching that. Instead it is about providing the ability to network OA across multiple solar systems.

Lets pretend the OA can provide real time "true unfiltered" map information for a system as a result of some module/rig installed. If you have access to the OA you can access that information simply by being in the same system as one of the OA. If you are in a system without an OA that is part of the network, you do not have access to the "unfiltered" information. You see what everyone else does.

You place an OA in two adjacent solar systems. You install a module in each OA linking them to form a network. Now you have live map data for both solar systems as long as you are in one of them.

The question:
How many nodes?
Is the network one to one or one to many.
Should access be limited to light years, constellation, region?
How do we balance attacker vs defender.
How do we generate player interaction
How do we make geography matter.

Limiting the size of the network limits its value. We want to encourage adoption, so bigger networks should be possible. Wether it’s done by node count or light year or constellation it only impacts the value for the defender. It never helps the attacker. I’ll tackle balancing the value for the attacker later. We have a couple of options to control size of the network.

One module on each end of a point to point link. All information is shared across all available links. Bigger modules or fitting requirement required for links that cross constellation or region boundaries or increasing LY distances. This allows for large networks. In some highly connected systems multiple modules would need to installed or multiple OA to handle all the links. This introduces geography to the system. Certain nodes based on location will be more important than others. Attacking key nodes would fragment the large network into smaller ones. Geography now matters which should be good. Players can build their networks as small or as large as they like. Nothing prevents them from building independent networks in the same system. For game balance limits can be placed on crossing any LY distance or region/constellation. The size of the network could impact fitting requirements. The more nodes in the network the more power grid or CPU the module requires.

If having one module per link is too restrictive on the slot lay out, the module might be able to handle multiple links(one to many) for a higher fitting cost or fuel consumption. This means the leaf node of the network could use lower fitting requirement modules while the inner nodes with multiple links need modules with higher fitting requirements. That also make taking out inner nodes more tempting.

Next, there needs to be a risk to having a network of OA. Attackers need to be able to gain access to the same information/benefits. I would extend the information to everyone in fleet with the attacker. This would suddenly turn a defensive strength into a tool for the attacking fleet. The entosis capture mechanism could provide this. The attacker uses the entosis on a OA. When the entosis is activated, an alert goes out notifying everyone with access to the OA that the OA is being accessed. The Defender can then select to defend the OA preventing access. That provides a point of conflict. After the initial activation and some brief capture time, the attacker gains access to the same information/benefits the OA provides. Duration of access has several options:
1) Timer base.
2) Until the OA is recaptured
3) The adjacent OA providing the link to the network is turned off/reconfigured. Which could fragment the mesh.
4) As long as you are on grid with the original OA.
5) Until you jump out of system/constellation/?

I suggest using the recapture by the owner. The owner also has the ability to sever the link to other systems by reconfiguring the other end of a link. Both mechanisms provide a point of possible combat.

When the owner regains control all access to the OA is reset. If someone leaves the attacking fleet, they lose the information feed. If someone joins the attacking fleet they gain access.

If multiple attacking fleets capture the OA, they all have access to the information until the owner recaptures it.

Since an attacker can co-opt the defenders network the need to destroy it is optional. This cuts down on the potential grind of installing OAs over and over.

Just an idea on networking OA across multiple systems.

This observatory array sounds promising.

I offer this version of a similar premise from the past, to add depth and options for small group play as well as major fleet action.

As this is an effort driven replacement / upgrade for intel, having it be vulnerable in the game on a level comparable to it's value in the game makes sense to me.

---

Originally posted november 5th, 2013, as a response in a long thread of other items.

Have intel operate in degrees of quality.
Give it two dimensions for this as well.

Dimension one, quantity of intel.
Dimension two, quality of intel.

Dimension one, would give ship numbers, then types, finally pilot names.
Dimension two, would give presence of neutrals, reduce delay to zero, then give presence of cloaked vessels.

Dimension one structures, which would be harder targets, would be POS add ons.
Dimension two structures, which would be easier targets meant for roams or smaller gangs, would be only in open space away from overview beacon items. These would need to be scanned down.

Examples:
Dimension 1: Level 3
Dimension 2: Level 3
Full list of pilot names, with faction tag visible.
Ship type listed next to name, highlighted if cloaking active.

Dimension 1: Level 3
Dimension 2: Level 0
Full list of pilot names, with ship type next to name.
NO faction standings listed, not defining cloak status.
ALL UPDATES DELAYED by 30 to 60 seconds, (balance adjusting by devs)

Dimension 1: Level 1
Dimension 2: Level 3
No pilot names.
4 Numbers listed.
1st number is how many friendly pilots (2nd is how many are cloaked)
3rd number is how many neutral or hostile (4th is how many are cloaked)

And for the curious, here is the actual for the 0-3 combo.
(This tactical setup could be anchored on relatively short notice, and has no strategic side as the above do)

Dimension 1: Level 0
Dimension 2: Level 3
A single light indicator
Not lit if no other pilots present
Green light lit if all friendly
Yellow light lit if hostiles present
Red light lit if hostile cloaked present


I figure this eliminates any need for hunting cloaked ships specifically, although that can be sorted into if the devs see balanced opportunity.

If done carefully, it can actually be effective, and a good support for everyone having a great game play experience.

The two dimensional system has one side for sov level support, only truly threatened by massive blob warfare, which only offers mass level intel.
The other side is for pilot level, whether operating solo or in small groups. The intel is more detailed, as well as quicker to install or destroy, depending on your perspective.

Both benefit strongly when the other side is present.

No

Not a fan of having a deterrent to cloaking. I tend to think that cloaking is one of the only deterrents other then logging out to getting blobbed to death in deep territory. By making it extremely easy just to randomly decloak people it undermines the use of guerilla warfare and hit and run tactics. Something that - especially in places like nullsec is vastly lacking.

If you add cloak pinpointing, I assume these arrays will also be capable of scanning anomalies?

If the target is AFK (how do you measure AFK?) then over a set period of time the location of the target is resolved so that you fo from knowing a general area in the system to the grid, to an approximate area within 30 KMs. The ship is not decloaked, but is in the semi-visible state the pilot sees when they cloak themselves. - ie: you have to eyeball it, approach it to within 2KMs to decloak it before you can lock it. If the pilot is AFK, they will die. If they are not AFK, they still have time to warp off.

Because the scanning equipment remembers the profile signature, it is able to more quickly resolve the location the ship is at if they warp to another location. However, if during the initial scanning, the pilot is warping locations, the timer is effectively reset until they are out of warp - non-warp movement has no effect on the ability of the scanning.

ie: you get X amount of time in a system before it becomes increasingly easier for those operating the observatory array to get your approximate location. The pilot can warp around still, but they have to be at the computer to initiate the warp. And of course if they are botting... well... there TOS and EULA conditions covering that.

Those are my thoughts on this if you add such a mechanism to the game.

Some more constructive feedback....



The issue i see with most of these attributes being affected by fittings on a stargate is this:

What if i enter the system via a wormhole?

It makes no sense what so ever that a gate many many AU away would affect my ship and how it moves if it never interacts with me at all.
Now i understand if you've jumped into a system via a gate that a gate can affect your ships systems as the gate has to transfer your ships matter stream from one systems gate to another systems gate and reconstitute it the other end.

But it makes little sense why it should affect me if i come into a system via a wormhole. Its logically unsound and straight away you have an edge case and confused pilots.

The only thing on that list that makes sense for a stargate to do is:


But regardless, as many have pointed out there seems to have been a complete disregard for the fact Stargates are the means that star systems are connected to each other, that interconnection can be used to move information
Information is a great way of both creating meaningful mechanics that groups of players will sink A LOT of isk into, and also allows other players to subvert and utilise for their own means.

Gates should be the comms relays of eve online. Maybe not the network multiplexes but the means to get data out of a system and to other players.

system modifiers like:

• warp speeds
• agility and mass in the system
• jump capabilities
• ship movement inside the solar system
• and wormhole behaviors.

are the business of iHubs in my opinion. Especially considering 'jump capabilities' are currently modified by an iHub upgrade and cynosaural system jammer to an extent.

i do think that introducing wormhole effects into nullsec is a great idea as it introduces the idea of 'terrain' in space.
Terrain is one of the cornerstones of strategic warfare, and any sci-fi fan worth his weight in sci-fi boxsets would tell you that space is 'danger and death wrapped in darkness and silence'. we should 'feel' the terrain of space more often.

It never fails to amaze me that people think that an area of space that allows you to destroy anyone at will with no automatic consequences, as well as control/restrict their movement, is safer than an area of space where NPC police literally spawn to kill you if you deign to turn your weapons on another.

Would it hurt your ickle brainmeats to display some adaptability?

Observation Arrays and AFK cloakers:

I think it is a good initial idea of giving defenders that own sov in space, have upgraded it and are using it actively, a tool to make it harder/more risky for AFK cloakers to perma-AFK-cloak a system. ALso, giving a tool for hunters that want's to hunt for AFK cloakers is a blessing! Once an AFK cloaker is in a system, there is no way to counter them, no matter if they are there to hunt miners, ratters or just for intel-gathering. Active players cloaking is no problem IMHO, AFK cloakers are.

As it looks now, the new entosis-sov-mechanisms will lead to a denser populated nullsec - to have a chance to protect sov-space, players have to focus on fewer systems. Thus, the effect of having AFK-cloakers in say an fully upgraded mining system, would have a larger effect than it has today as more players would potentially be affected. Today, miners can regroup to another upgraded mining system. This wont be possible in entosis-sov EVE.

As I see it, cloakers that play actively would be hard to catch even with the Observation Array Decloaking Pulse. There should be some kind of feedback to the cloaked player that he/she is decloaked by this "Observation Array Decloak-pulse". The decloak itself just makes the cloaker detecable by combat probes, unless they are on grid of course, so there is a chain of events that needs to work rather "quickly" to be able to catch and kill an active cloaked player, actually I think it will be futile, but that's OK! Active cloaked player would easily detect both the decloak, and the combat probes and would just as easily regroup to a new spot and re-cloak again. AFK cloakers on the other hand - they will have a harder time. If you are actively flying a cloaked ship and suddenly need to leave EVE, and don't want to take the risk of getting caught by a rather complicated sensor-killer-chain (Observation Array Decloak Pulse -> Combat Probes -> Pointed -> Bubbled -> Killed and podded) you have the option to safe-log in space and be safe in 30s.

The effect this would get is that cloaked players that ARE in system will be active players. AFK-cloaking will not be a viable option in upgraded systems (in other systems it would work as today). So When a cloaky player materilize in said mining system, the Obervation Array Decloak Pulse is activated and the defenders fail to detect any decloaked ships, he/she is a real potential threat and will force the miners to anwer to that threat by stop mining, docking, reshipping or what ever. That's fine!

Now, to be honest, this WILL make it harder to drop or catch players in upgraded systems with sov and upgraded Obesrvation Arrays, yes! But owning sov and keeping systems with upgrades in the new entosis-sov EVE WILl also be a rather difficult task, so there should be some rewards to those who succeed with that!!! I dont envy those that will try tbh!

And there will be a plethora of new ways to disrupt these sov-owning players/miners when AFK-cloaking is more or less rendered obsolete (entosising their structures or sov-structures is the obvious one here). So I think that on the whole, there will be just as many, or even more ways than today to "harass" instead of AFK cloaking. The difference is that it will require active playing which is good! We active players WANTS to fight other active players! We DONT want to hunt for AFK people.

These changes in EVE with entosis-sov and new structures will change many many players play-styles. Those players who are eager to adapt will find new entertaining ways to navigate through the new mechanisms and functions in EVE and the historys generated will pull new players to the game for the better of both CCP and the remaining player base.

Those who are unable to adapt, unable to change and who look to the past more than they look to the future will not have fun playing EVE and will leave the game. Their moaning will be forgotten and no-one will care. The new players will not abstain from trying EVE because some conservative old bittervets moan about how it was better back in the 2000s in EVE Online when AFK clokaing was the most fun one could do!

So, CCP, you are on the right path here! Observation Array Decloaking Pulses is for the better, we active players like it and we will adapt to the changes and have lots of fun! AFK cloaking in upgraded sov-systems will die, and no one left in EVE online will be sorry for that!

Go CCP, go!