These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New structures] Observatory Arrays and Gates

First post First post First post
Author
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2015-03-27 13:41:35 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Your attackers arent disguised in a mass of static/false positives in null sec. Yeah, its safer for ratting.


Correct. I spend more time mashing Dscan in highsec than null.

The undeniable truth is that it is harder to die ratting in null than the same activity in high if you're remotely paying attention HOWEVER it is easier to let yourself be disrupted in null, if that non-blue in local scares you so much.

Even an interceptor, KNOWING where the target is to warp to is actualy hard pressed to catch a sufficiently alert ratter, even if they are not already aligned. Test it yourself - see how long it takes for your name to pop into local vs you landing at a belt and being able to point the nearest rock. It's a LOT longer than you might suspect.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#222 - 2015-03-27 16:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Masao Kurata wrote:


Okay but seriously go suicide gank before saying that CONCORD, sentry guns or facpol are useless. And I don't mean as an F1 monkey in a fleet, solo or FC one yourself.

The volume of suicide ganking stems from two things: how incredibly target rich highsec is and sheer bloody-mindedness.


i know this.

read the post i was responding to, and read my reply.

afkalt wrote:
. Test it yourself - see how long it takes for your name to pop into local vs you landing at a belt and being able to point the nearest rock. It's a LOT longer than you might suspect.


You appear in local several seconds before you even load the system.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#223 - 2015-03-27 18:12:55 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
He said Concord were not much protection, (all they do is kill the ship aggressing, which can be an expected and acceptable loss to the attacking pilot).

For pilots planning to lose ships, in exchange for killing and possibly profiting from the kill made before Concord stops them, it can be profitable. That makes their deterrent ability limited to situations where profit would not be expected.


Killing the aggressing ship is a HUGE deal. It places a strict time limit (which is less than the time it takes for them to kill you because they have infinite strength jams, neuts and zero out drone bandwidth first) on how long you have from the first aggressive action to deal all the damage needed to kill your target, which does not exceed 25 seconds and is as low as 5 in an unpulled 1.0 (lower still with CONCORD on grid but there's little excuse for ganking under those circumstances).
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#224 - 2015-03-27 18:38:04 UTC
Masao Kurata wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
He said Concord were not much protection, (all they do is kill the ship aggressing, which can be an expected and acceptable loss to the attacking pilot).

For pilots planning to lose ships, in exchange for killing and possibly profiting from the kill made before Concord stops them, it can be profitable. That makes their deterrent ability limited to situations where profit would not be expected.


Killing the aggressing ship is a HUGE deal. It places a strict time limit (which is less than the time it takes for them to kill you because they have infinite strength jams, neuts and zero out drone bandwidth first) on how long you have from the first aggressive action to deal all the damage needed to kill your target, which does not exceed 25 seconds and is as low as 5 in an unpulled 1.0 (lower still with CONCORD on grid but there's little excuse for ganking under those circumstances).

Oh, I agree it is a huge deal.

That said, it takes away nothing from my point.

Specifically:

Nikk Narrel wrote:
... That makes their deterrent ability limited to situations where profit would not be expected.
Jori Ituin
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
#225 - 2015-03-27 21:33:48 UTC
With regards to Observation Arrays [OA], I believe that their effectiveness should be tied to the number of the owning alliances members in the system at that moment in time, possibly with an upper limit. I think the OA could use these alliance ships to help pin-point a hostile ship, naturally if there are a half a dozen cloaked hostile ships it should take longer to pin point them.

This may well lead to a situation where a cloaky camper enters a system and an alliance drops 500 members into the system to pin-point him more quickly, but I don't believe that this is an issue as it should always take xx minutes to pinpoint a ship. This should be long enough to give a cloaky capsuleer time to find a target or transit through a system. However, if he decides to loiter with no intention of fighting he will eventually be tracked down.

The math involved should prevent two capsuleers in a remote system from being able to quickly, if at all pin-point a cloaky pilot.

Essentially, it should require active participation by capsuleers in conjunction with the OA to pin-point anything.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#226 - 2015-03-27 22:08:22 UTC
Jori Ituin wrote:
With regards to Observation Arrays [OA], I believe that their effectiveness should be tied to the number of the owning alliances members in the system at that moment in time, possibly with an upper limit. I think the OA could use these alliance ships to help pin-point a hostile ship, naturally if there are a half a dozen cloaked hostile ships it should take longer to pin point them.

This may well lead to a situation where a cloaky camper enters a system and an alliance drops 500 members into the system to pin-point him more quickly, but I don't believe that this is an issue as it should always take xx minutes to pinpoint a ship. This should be long enough to give a cloaky capsuleer time to find a target or transit through a system. However, if he decides to loiter with no intention of fighting he will eventually be tracked down.

The math involved should prevent two capsuleers in a remote system from being able to quickly, if at all pin-point a cloaky pilot.

Essentially, it should require active participation by capsuleers in conjunction with the OA to pin-point anything.

These cloaky camper concerns are just a bit one sided, it seems.

I see lots of material about how to drive them out, hunt them down, basically make them go away.
(If effective enough, remove any meaningful incentive to attempt that cloaking play style entirely)

In short, we seem to have produced stacks of solutions, where the cloaky camper loses.
While one side losing does resolve the issue, shouldn't we have more than just that one outcome?

In the interest of balance, how exactly are we creating opportunities for the cloaked hostile to win?

Seriously, we do want player driven content in sov null, besides the blob-fests that is.


Sayod Physulem
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#227 - 2015-03-27 22:14:34 UTC
Jori Ituin wrote:
With regards to Observation Arrays [OA], I believe that their effectiveness should be tied to the number of the owning alliances members in the system at that moment in time, possibly with an upper limit. I think the OA could use these alliance ships to help pin-point a hostile ship, naturally if there are a half a dozen cloaked hostile ships it should take longer to pin point them.

This may well lead to a situation where a cloaky camper enters a system and an alliance drops 500 members into the system to pin-point him more quickly, but I don't believe that this is an issue as it should always take xx minutes to pinpoint a ship. This should be long enough to give a cloaky capsuleer time to find a target or transit through a system. However, if he decides to loiter with no intention of fighting he will eventually be tracked down.

The math involved should prevent two capsuleers in a remote system from being able to quickly, if at all pin-point a cloaky pilot.

Essentially, it should require active participation by capsuleers in conjunction with the OA to pin-point anything.


Why would you want a mechanic that plainly gives an advantage to groups over single players? This makes absolutely no sense. And from a realism standpoint. You only need to scan from 4 positions to pinpoint a ship in space. But these 4 positions can be pretty close together. So you could have an array at the front of your ship, in the back and at two other places and pinpoint something on your own. The only problem is, that you need to have very accurate numbers because small inaccuracys make a big difference if your scan arrays are so close together.

Because of that probes make sense. But the OA array could just have this accuracy. And its accuracy could increase with the number of OAs. But there is no reason to let it increase by players in the system...

And this is the realistism part. But EVE is far from realistic, so from a gameplay aspect - why would you want this??
Alundil
Rolled Out
#228 - 2015-03-27 22:16:54 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Alundil wrote:
Stuff


Interesting points, thanks - however, if possible, we would like to open up as many structures as possible for people not participating in Sovereignty warfare.

Why should we penalize players in high-security space by preventing them to anchor their own gates? If they're willing to pay, face the risk of having them attacked and maintenance of having them, I don't see why it should be for Sovereignty space only.

A large group of players willing to bypass Niarja by building a network of gates around it should be able to do so. Smugglers in low-sec, or FW pilots should be able to use their own gates to get a tactical edge over their opponents.

We may find out later that it may not be wise to do so for whatever design / technical reason, but we'd really like to keep the system as open-ended as possible for now until proven otherwise Pirate.

Thank you for reading/replying Ytterbium.

I wanted to respond to your point.

RE: Structures gameplay opened up for people not participating in Sov Warfare.
Since I am a wspace player and strongly dislike the grind and "job-like political meta" that is Sov 00, I wholeheartedly agree with your, and CCP's, desire to extend structure gameplay to as many pilots as possible regardless of Sov or not. In no way was I suggesting or implying that people be "penalized" for not playing the Sov 00 game. You bring up good points about all three scenarios detailing FW, low-sec and high-sec groups willing to fund such endeavors. As such, I've updated my line item regarding placement of gate-like structures, which is the only place I specifically called out sov kspace).
A word of caution regarding player created gates in non-sov kspace (specifically high-sec). You (the general you) run the risk of allowing the creation of structures that completely bypass/obsolete the work that was put into travel restrictions (jump fatigue and reducing the ease of safely travelling massive distances regardless of mass being moved) by potentially opening up the ability of the games largest blocs to build gate networks from their closest high-sec point to the trade hub of their choice. Thereby greatly reducing the chance to interdict their movements given high-sec pvp and war dec mechanics. Something to consider as you go forward.

I note that you left out of comment, the OA. That is something I definitely feel should be left to kspace only.

I'm right behind you

Tessaline
Sharknado Generation
#229 - 2015-03-27 22:18:39 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

These cloaky camper concerns are just a bit one sided, it seems.

I see lots of material about how to drive them out, hunt them down, basically make them go away.
(If effective enough, remove any meaningful incentive to attempt that cloaking play style entirely)

In short, we seem to have produced stacks of solutions, where the cloaky camper loses.
While one side losing does resolve the issue, shouldn't we have more than just that one outcome?

In the interest of balance, how exactly are we creating opportunities for the cloaked hostile to win?

Seriously, we do want player driven content in sov null, besides the blob-fests that is.

You're right. How about this:
An Entosis link can lock someone down when using it, right? One ore more people can Entosis link the Observatory while using Combat Probes. This will allow the cloaky to be probed with very high difficulty. The cloaky can see the probes and check the Observatory. If no one is protecting the prober, free kill for cloaky!
Dirk Morbho
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2015-03-27 23:29:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


It's a bit too early too answer those questions on gates - it depends what we are going to do with existing gates, where they're going to lead, how will the work and etc.

One goal we have is for them to replace Jump Bridges though.


Does this mean there's gonna be short range gates and long range gates?

short range would replace JB's (5ly) and the long range gates would be the new stuff?


Cade Windstalker
#231 - 2015-03-27 23:54:00 UTC
Idea regarding Gates:

Allow Gates to be anchored in any system .5 or lower. This prevents them from being too close to most trade-hubs or "safe" parts of space. It should also spread them out sufficiently to avoid any problems with the old super-highway gates between the four NPC faction capitals (if you don't know what I'm talking about this is *old* EVE lore. Those gates last existed in 2004.)

Also make it so you need a gate at both ends for the connection to work. No putting a gate in .5 space, boosting the range as far as you can with modules, and then connecting it to an existing gate in Null.

Gates in high-sec can have further restrictions on their range or other functionality as appropriate.

Would also be interesting to have systems that aren't accessible via the normal gate network but do have Wormholes open into them. Then players can anchor gates in those systems and setup shop, or even leave them closed off and just link up a section of "Nomad Space" (or whatever you want to call it) that's off the normal gate grid completely. Sort of an in-between state between normal Null and Wormhole Space.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#232 - 2015-03-28 00:14:51 UTC
I have removed two posts. One was offensive and disrespectful, while the other was off-topic, primarily a rant, and avoided the profanity filter.

Please follow all of our rules.

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#233 - 2015-03-28 04:26:40 UTC
Tessaline wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

These cloaky camper concerns are just a bit one sided, it seems.

I see lots of material about how to drive them out, hunt them down, basically make them go away.
(If effective enough, remove any meaningful incentive to attempt that cloaking play style entirely)

In short, we seem to have produced stacks of solutions, where the cloaky camper loses.
While one side losing does resolve the issue, shouldn't we have more than just that one outcome?

In the interest of balance, how exactly are we creating opportunities for the cloaked hostile to win?

Seriously, we do want player driven content in sov null, besides the blob-fests that is.

You're right. How about this:
An Entosis link can lock someone down when using it, right? One ore more people can Entosis link the Observatory while using Combat Probes. This will allow the cloaky to be probed with very high difficulty. The cloaky can see the probes and check the Observatory. If no one is protecting the prober, free kill for cloaky!

That sounds like a good secondary goal.

Now, unless the cloaky came into the target system, hoping to get someone to hunt for them and get ambushed like that...
Why was the cloaky present in the first place?
( I like fishing as much as the next player, but if that's the only positive motivation, I think this needs more thought )

Also, this seems to diminish all cloaked presence, to hoping someone wants to play hide and seek.
What about genuine scouts and observers?
Can we establish a hull and fitting combination that trades offensive potential, for genuine immunity from detection?

I can get behind ships that are made strictly for scouting / spying / covert observation, but are otherwise harmless.
Tessaline
Sharknado Generation
#234 - 2015-03-28 08:05:19 UTC
I think with a backup sensor array you can make yourself harder to probe out. (ECCM too, but I don't think that works while cloaked.)
Jori Ituin
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
#235 - 2015-03-28 11:17:41 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Jori Ituin wrote:
With regards to Observation Arrays [OA], I believe that their effectiveness should be tied to the number of the owning alliances members in the system at that moment in time, possibly with an upper limit. I think the OA could use these alliance ships to help pin-point a hostile ship, naturally if there are a half a dozen cloaked hostile ships it should take longer to pin point them.

This may well lead to a situation where a cloaky camper enters a system and an alliance drops 500 members into the system to pin-point him more quickly, but I don't believe that this is an issue as it should always take xx minutes to pinpoint a ship. This should be long enough to give a cloaky capsuleer time to find a target or transit through a system. However, if he decides to loiter with no intention of fighting he will eventually be tracked down.

The math involved should prevent two capsuleers in a remote system from being able to quickly, if at all pin-point a cloaky pilot.

Essentially, it should require active participation by capsuleers in conjunction with the OA to pin-point anything.

These cloaky camper concerns are just a bit one sided, it seems.

I see lots of material about how to drive them out, hunt them down, basically make them go away.
(If effective enough, remove any meaningful incentive to attempt that cloaking play style entirely)

In short, we seem to have produced stacks of solutions, where the cloaky camper loses.
While one side losing does resolve the issue, shouldn't we have more than just that one outcome?

In the interest of balance, how exactly are we creating opportunities for the cloaked hostile to win?

Seriously, we do want player driven content in sov null, besides the blob-fests that is.



You are right Nikk Narrel, that is why I mentioned that cloaky capsuleers should have an amount of time to go about their business before they can be affected by an OA, I'm not sure how long this should be but I suspect something in the 5-60 minute range should be adequate.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2015-03-28 12:18:12 UTC
If you can find cloakers, what risk is left in null ratting, an activity stated by CCP to bring in "a ****-ton" of isk?

Even an interceptor finds it almost impossible to snag an alert pilot.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#237 - 2015-03-28 12:55:45 UTC
afkalt wrote:
If you can find cloakers, what risk is left in null ratting, an activity stated by CCP to bring in "a ****-ton" of isk?

Even an interceptor finds it almost impossible to snag an alert pilot.

Then let's make it possible for an opposed effort to be necessity for safety.

Rather than seeing a new name, complete with standings, appear for no effort in local...
Have a gate give off a signal, or possibly an alarm, whenever it is used, would seem to me logical.

(Your sensors detect the energy pulse from gate activation, but it is your responsibility to determine whether you should feel threatened.)

The OA could be the mechanism which alerts friendlies to gate use, possibly needing an upgrade to tell different gates apart in systems with mre than one.
It could even possibly be upgraded to relay friendly transponder codes from an ally, when an ally comes in.
(A hostile having no transponder signal sent after the gate use is indicated)
Raphael Celestine
Celestine Inc.
#238 - 2015-03-28 13:30:06 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Now, unless the cloaky came into the target system, hoping to get someone to hunt for them and get ambushed like that...
Why was the cloaky present in the first place?
( I like fishing as much as the next player, but if that's the only positive motivation, I think this needs more thought )

We start by splitting the anti-cloaking defenses into several stages, in increasing order of difficulty. Step one is determining that there is a cloaky ship present at all. Step two is identification - determining approximately where the target is and what he's flying, but not accurately enough to actually attack him. Step three is pinpointing and decloaking. If it takes time to move through the stages (especially if stage one isn't always instant), then a cloaky has a chance to get in and get something done before the defenses kick in. Hunting the locals, ninja mining/ratting/explo...

Personally, I'd like to see some variation in how well systems are covered against covert infiltration, both in how fast each step happens and how many steps can be done using the system defenses as opposed to bringing in a specialist ship.

In the primary market hub of one of the big coalitions, a lynchpin of their logistic efforts and a system where they've invested several large fortunes in upgrading and securing their space? The defenders should absolutely have the tools to detect, pinpoint, and counterattack virtually any incursion into their space. A scout fit for pure evasion should probably still be able to avoid being killed, and have enough freedom of movement to gather at least some intel, but even then the defenders should know he's there unless someone has fallen asleep.

But it should be impractical to extend that kind of coverage to entire empires. An ordinary system - actively lived in and defended, but not a critical strategic location - should have moderate defenses, but ones that can be beaten. A scout should be able to move pretty much at will, and while a combat-oriented cloaky shouldn't be able to hang around for hours on end, they should have a short window to strike before anyone can pin them down.

At the far end of the spectrum, in a system that's only lightly defended or one that's had it's infrastructure damaged by recent raids, the assumption should be that anything could be present at any time.

In any system not covered by the best level of defenses, I'd put the initial 'is there a cloaky here' check on a timer. Use predictable intervals between pings, but don't fix it to the system clock in any predicatable way, to give scouts an additional purpose - anyone jumping in blind might get unlucky and get detected immediately, but if you have eyes in the system you can jump in immediately after a sensor sweep, and maximise the time you have before being detected. Perhaps allow a tradeoff between strength of the sensors and the rate at which they cycle?

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Also, this seems to diminish all cloaked presence, to hoping someone wants to play hide and seek.
What about genuine scouts and observers?
Can we establish a hull and fitting combination that trades offensive potential, for genuine immunity from detection?

I can get behind ships that are made strictly for scouting / spying / covert observation, but are otherwise harmless.

To me, that sounds like a cyno-less CovOps frigate. They're explicitly designed for espionage work, and noone would exactly shake in their boots at the thought of being attacked by a Helios.

I'd suggest that a regular cyno carry a large penalty to whatever-it-is that determines whether you can be detected by anti-cloaking measures. Covert cynos should have a smaller but still signficant penalty - tune it so that an attacker can slip one past at least some defenses, but there's no margin for error in doing so.

Combat cloakies should be stealthy yet not undetectable, but I'd give the Covert Ops frigates near-immunity to static defenses (at least when not handicapped by cyno penalties). The structures might give hints that one is spying on you, but actually trying to find it should take active counterespionage efforts by an opposition pilot - possibly by a second CovOps.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
#239 - 2015-03-28 13:36:15 UTC
I think the star map filter numbers should be acquired through the use of this service module or a version of it. Right now I can just log into dotlan and look at where the ratting systems are. This really won't become as necessary after the sov changes since most groups will be consolidated to a few systems. Most likely I'll simply base my roams off of who owns the system. However I do think this Intel should be earned not given. By using this structure it gives the sov residents something to destroy of value to the aggressors. This will become even more useful if local in 0.0 works similar to WH space.

Intel: gathers information every 10 minutes on system activities within the scan radios of 10ly.
Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#240 - 2015-03-28 15:04:01 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
I think the star map filter numbers should be acquired through the use of this service module or a version of it. Right now I can just log into dotlan and look at where the ratting systems are. This really won't become as necessary after the sov changes since most groups will be consolidated to a few systems.


Other than Deklein, most ratting is consolidated to a few systems. Deklein is one of the only regions in the game that sees significant ratting spread out across almost every system. (numbers may be wonky right now with Delve 15 going on).

If anything I would expect new sov to spread things a bit to maintain mil levels on more systems.