Player Features and Ideas Discussion

TL;DR
1: Change local to prevent it from being an intel channel
2: Remove watch lists; move function to locator agents
3: Massively buff locator agents
4: Change D-scan function to operate akin to probes
5: New scanning functions (d-scan/probes)
6: Cloaking overhaul
7: Tweak sensor strength, Recons
8: Tweak probe launchers

I apologize in advance for the wordiness of this, but I feel these ideas need proper context. So this is going to be 4 posts long, which is much longer than I thought it was going to be. Again, apologies. Nobody likes to read a mini-novel on these forums, and that includes me.

Post 1
Basis: merely my opinion. But I believe intel is far too easy to acquire in this game and my sincere belief is that the game would be better off in multiple ways if gathering intel was a more involved and skillful process.

Solution: a large range of nerfs to various intel sources, and a few select buffs, aimed at giving EvE a larger and darker feel to it.

I'll go over each category and intel source as I understand it, explain how I see its role in my revised system, and explain why I believe it is necessary. We'll start with the big ones and work our way down.


Part 1: Local

Local has probably caused more heated debates than any other aspect of this game. What it boils down to, however, is that it absolutely needs to stay. But..., it needs to be revisited and adapted to the modern meta. As long as the players adapt to the game mechanics, so too must the game adapt to how the players play the game. And as the single largest and most important source of intel, this places it at the top of my list for restructuring.

A thread from a year or so ago really struck me, that a man lamented that he couldn't enter into lowsec systems anymore without everyone scattering to the four winds. Why? Not merely because of a name popping up in local, but because that name could be copy-pasted to various other online intel sources that would give enormous information on the types of ships he flies, his possible fits, the sort of people he flies with, et cetera.

When I said earlier the game must adapt to the meta just as much as the players adapt to the game, this is a big part of why. There is currently enormous amounts of information you can gather on a person just with one or two sources that I know of, and for how little I know of PvP, if I know of one or two good sources than there must be at least dozens of sites that give even more information. The root cause of this problem is the name popping up in local, so this has to be fixed first and foremost. Local as it is now cannot, under any circumstance, be allowed to continue as-is in this game.

Proposal 1: Drastically change local
This idea was shamelessly taken from someone else's post, but local shouldn't show names unless someone posts in it. The idea is to change the local pilot list with merely a series of numbers. Those numbers would be categorized by standing (also, we need more color labels for standing, like seriously). So you'd have five number categories, as well as a total population number above. At a quick glance, you could tell how many reds are in system, orange, blues, etc, and how many neutrals. But you wouldn't know precisely who was there unless you were camping the gate and caught a glimpse of them coming in, or otherwise got on-grid with them.

This would apply to all k-space, not just null or lowsec. All areas of space give way too much information on people. Going into a star system should be like the first time (your favorite sci-fi movie protagonist) visited (busy spaceport/city) for the first time. People are everywhere, doing their thing, but you don't know who they are and what they're doing to right off the bat. You shouldn't be able to walk into a bar and open up every person's FBI file just by seeing them.


Part 2: Watch lists

I've seen quite a bit of debate on watch lists before. And as much as many of us would hate to admit it, they are overpowered and it hampers gameplay. It needs to be removed completely. I don't know if AOL is still around or not, but when I used to use AIM, contacts had to be mutual. It asked permission, and only worked if it was granted. If you removed a person from your friends list, it removed you from their friends list as well. If you want to maintain the social aspect of watch lists, this is how you do it. Otherwise, always knowing when your enemy blops team logs on and being able to run and hide in advance, well, only causes you to run and hide. Safety in this game should come from situational awareness, not overpowered mechanics like this.

Post 3
Part 5: New scanning functions.

This ties indirectly with d-scan, but it also effects combat probing, so it gets a chapter to itself. I would like to expand upon the way we both d-scan and probe. I would like to introduce two new scanning functions, focusing on engine emissions and sensor pings.

While your ship is moving, even and especially when you are using your afterburner, you are actively emitting high-energy particles into the void of space. I believe these should be tracked. While you are moving at all (including slowing down, as you need to fire reverse thrusters to slow down), you should be emitting an engine signature that should be able to be picked up by a d-scan when selected to look for engine signatures, as well as combat probes via the same selection. Like standard scanning, the larger the signature, the closer you are to it, the more focused your d-scan arc, the more info you should get on it. Currently I don't have very grand ideas on this one. But I believe you should be able to get this intel further out than regular scanning. And the intel provided would be more limited. Namely, the size of the vessel on the second tier of intel (small/frigate, medium/cruiser or battlecruiser, large/battleship, capital), then the third tier of intel would be the race of the ship (Caldari, Blood Raiders, etc). The point of having this intel easier to get at distance is so that if you can't quite pick up something with standard scanning, but you are adept at positioning your ship and d-scanning, you can still get some information even at range.
Note: using afterburner would bloom your engine sig 500% akin to what MWD does for your sig radius. The difference would still be that d-scan and combat probing don't help you get a lock for weapons, so using an afterburner would still not help people get a faster lock on you while on grid.

As far as sensors, like active radar or sonar, your d-scan emits a very high-energy pulse into the void of space, and I believe other sensors should be able to pick up on that. Similar to how I describe engine emission focusing, I believe at farther ranges than normal scanning, you should be able to get some information. Starting with the type of sensors (magnetometric, rader, etc), then I'm honestly not too sure what the third tier of information should be (first tier is always "ship"). I would like to differentiate it from engine sig, in terms of getting some information at range when you can't get a fix on something with standard scan. I'm sure the feedback in this thread might provide a few interesting ideas on this one.

But wait, how does sensor focusing work? If you only d-scan for one tick, how would you ever be able to time it right to counter-detect it?

I would have d-scanning leave a residual signature for 60 seconds after use. So if someone d-scans, you can counter-detect it for 60 seconds thereafter.


Part 6: Cloaking in the new system.

Oh boy, here comes the really controversial part. I bet this one causes the second-biggest firestorm, after local
In my vision of new intel systems, I would place slight nerfs upon all coaking devices, adjusted for tech level.
1:) Tech I Prototype cloaking device. Works basically the same as now, but with new modifiers to account for new sensor information, namely the engine signature and d-scan counter-detect. Gives a 50% reduction to the detectability of those sources when applicable.
2:) Tech II improved cloaking device. Gives a 75% reduction to the detectability of the ship's engine and sensor signatures
3:) Tech II Covert ops cloaking device. Gives a 90% reduction.

Yes, this means that you are still detectable by some means even if you are cloaked. However, those reductions would make it impossible to get enough of a fix to combat probe you out (we'd work out the numbers and equations later). But if you had your engines on and were d-scanning to see what's in system, someone would be made aware of it. They might be able to triangulate you down to a certain area with probes, but never fully lock onto you.

Yes this means that now, in theory, you can distinguish an AFK cloaker from an active one. The cloaker needs to d-scan to find out what is in system for his buddies to ambush, giving you time to detect him and know if he's currently active or not.

However, if you don't d-scan, and you're sitting at perfectly 0m/s, then you're not emitting any particles to detect. Cloaking functioning as intended.

This also means if you are in a recon, and you're approaching someone on grid with the intentions of ruining his day, he might have a chance to detect you. Again, with the reduction of your signatures from the cloaking device, his d-scan will have a hard time distinguishing you being on grid. He'd have to reduce his d-scan range to 200km to realize the signature is that close. And while yes, he can do that, he's missing out on scanning out farther and taking a risk that other threats are out there where he's not looking. Risk verses reward. I fly recons and yes this would effect me, but I believe it is balanced gameplay. I'm sure others might disagree but I'm open to persuasion. Let me know in the comments below. Speaking of recons...

Fairly certain the suggestion for Watch Lists has been made previously, but it's one I agree with.

Hello and thank you for reading! That said, let's discuss!

Part 1: please don't touch local, if you want somewhere without local live in a wormhole. I can compromise on a delayed local for low/null where it takes a longer for someone to pop up in local, but never high sec. High sec should be safer (i use the term safer very loosely btw) than the other spaces and shouldn't be altered, especially for new players who don't know enough about EVE.

I don't want local removed. I want it to stop being game-breaking. By itself it isn't, but the meta outside the game with killboards and other intel sites makes local hideously overpowered. Perhaps we can find a different way to nerf it. But one way or another, the names/pilot list have to go. It can't be left to stand as it is.

Part 2: Knowing your enemy is on is one thing, knowing where they are currently is completely different. Just because you see someone come on doesn't mean they'll be at your doorstep, or blop you. I can't get behind the mutual agreement idea on the grounds that you shouldn't have to ask to watch them, because we have a -5/-10 setting and all this'll do have is every ganker from here to jita would auto decline all invites.

Just knowing that people are online is a huge boon. Recording their online/offline times is a huge boon. I can sit in Jita and record the logging habits of goon supers. What's that you say, they (or any other target) can stay logged on all day to throw off intel?
There's a post I liked in a different thread, that goes something like this

Let's just get rid of the elephant in the room, rather than trying to reinforce the floor and pretend there isn't a two-ton animal pooping on the nice carpet.

And with upcoming time-based SOV, this makes such mechanics even more overpowered. To be honest I don't want mutual agreement either, since friends can already auto-join chat channels so there's no social reason for it either. Remove watch lists.

Part 4: While I'm disputing this per se, ECCMs have nothing to do with dscan, so they shouldn't buff anything. Now Sensor Boosters on the other hand is something that might work. Covert Ops and exploration frigs should also get a bonus since it's their role. Other than that, it would depend on the dscan ranges and strength. Honestly though Dscan isn't broken as is, I don't see a reason to alter it, even for battleships.

That's part of the point. ECCM's currently do not do do any good unless you're being jammed. I've heard they make it harder to probe you out, but that's rather niche. All other countermeasures give you a measurable good even when you're not under EWAR. This gives ECCM just a tad more utility. Plus it makes sense, it boosts sensor strength after all. Sensor resolution & boosters by proxy, effect your ability to lock onto a target. D-scan isn't about that, it's about detecting out into the void of space. It makes sense that as a long-range sensor system, it is measured by a different value than sensor resolution. Ergo, sensor strength.

Part 5: EVE ships don't have reverse thrusters so that's something to consider. Other than that, it does seem interesting, but I do think it needs refining.

I don't consider that at all. You're moving - you're using engines. Keep it simple. Refining? Absolutely. I look forward to other suggestions on how to make it it work better.

Part 6: The very idea of detecting any cloaked ship defeats the very concept and point of cloaking itself. If they were to do this though, make prototype 50%, improved 85%, covert ops cloak 100%. Alternatively give role bonuses to Covert/Black ops for 100% undetectability because that's what they are meant for.

I understand your defensiveness of cloaks, but no, detecting cloaked ships does not defeat the very concept of it at all. Even under my system they'd have immense utility and would enjoy all the same use they currently do. There is nothing a current cloaker can do, that my system would prevent them doing.

Right now a cloaker is visible on local as soon as they enter system. So you will probably have intel on who he is, what he flies, what corp he flies with, whether or not he hotdrops, and more, before he even lands on grid with you. Surprise lost. My system would give them more cover and the ability to get on grid with you before you had a chance to detect them, which is only about a thousand percent better than the current system. Even then, you can only detect them if they're actively moving about. If their engines are off, you still don't detect them. And they can linger right off your port bow for hours and you wouldn't even know it.

This is a buff to cloakers, that also asks for a little back in return that helps everyone out.

Part 7: I like the idea of having some recons immune to dscan, it really adds something to mix.
To a certain extent I agree. It is interesting. But as many pointed out originally, it breaks a couple of foundations of the game. I'd rather give combat recons a real role, rather than being the "slightly stronger" version of force recons.

Part 8: I don't mind the reduced requirements for the launcher, but the increase in capacity is largely unneeded considering all you need is 8 probes.
No, all you need is LOVE! :D Okay, song references aside, I was referring to the core launcher, which cannot fit a single combat probe unless the capacity is expanded. For the sake of giving roaming gangs more options for not walking directly into a trap, I'd give them the ability to fit a core probe launcher (15 cpu verses expanded that is 220), and they can launch a single combat probe to help themselves out. It's not that I'm saying they have no options, I'm saying I want to expand the options available.

You have many tools at your disposal in this game. You know what my small group did during wardecs? Stayed together, communicated effectively, and d-scanned often. People had alts watch the gates. If you know of no tools that you can use, then that's on you.

And individual topics may be covered by stickies, but these are part of a larger cohesive plan, and don't fit under any individual topic or sticky. That's like saying Obamacare is worthless because hospitals already exist.

No, there are not too many ideas for constructive discussion, because they only work as a whole and can't or shouldn't be discussed separately. Plus I see dev start threads with extensive and diverse ideas and that never stopped people from discussing any and all aspects of the presented ideas.

But you contribute nothing to the discussion other than to announce that you're not qualified or interested in doing so, so good for you I guess? The door is to your right, see yourself out and discuss other matters in other threads you feel are worth your time then.

This wall of text is not something I gonna read through, but my general suggestion is to keep high sec out of any changes, that will make game environment even more hostile. We are keep lossing newbees in big numbers and OP suggestions will not make the game more interesting for them, IMHO.

The problem with your post is that you have no idea if it would make the game environment any more hostile. You admit as much. Nerfing intel streams cannot, by their nature, hurt newbies. Are newcomers to the game going to be upset that they can't remotely track the logging habits of goon supers? No. Newbies will still be doing the same thing we've always taught them - dscan at all times. Just there's going to be a bit more nuance to it, and if they want to master the system they get more out of it. That sort of choice and embracing complexity for the sake of enriching gameplay is the cornerstone of EvE, isn't it?

Thank you for your insightful reply! :)

Watch list is different than adding contacts and assigning a color. As a sometimes-resident of lowsec and sometimes-resident of highsec, I do see your point. But let's cover lowsec for a second. I happened to be privy to a TS3 chat recently where some pilots in my corp lamented that people from...bombers bar I think? Came into the system. As soon as they noticed those names/that corp in local, they took the precise evasive actions needed to avoid getting a delivery of torps. They had instant, perfect intel, and were able to act upon it to prevent a famous corp from killing them.

You can set them to red or orange, but you only get two colors. What if you set a bunch of people to red to watch out for them, but it isn't bombers bar, it's a selection of gatecampers? There's too much knowledge in local chat.

But I believe your premise on "everyone scatter" is just slightly off. Just slightly. You are entirely correct in that it is the default action in nullsec, and mostly default in lowsec. But you know what happens half the time when I enter lowsec? Not a thing. People don't scatter, log, or whatever. They just d-scan more often. Sometimes I'll get a comment on my ship class and name. There's six different corps that have members that reside in my normal lowsec area, plus dozens of nullsec residents that pass through. Lowsec is frequented by people not native to the area, it's the nature of it. From my experience the locals there just learn to deal with it. Which, you said you're a wormhole dweller? Isn't that precisely what you do?

People in k-space should have some information about their surroundings. Not absolute information about their surroundings. My proposal changes the functionality. Yes people will be skittsh at first, but they will adapt. I've done it. I've seen others do it. I've seen others do it much quicker than I.

But you are right about one thing, I would miss seeing that pretty face of yours :)

I agree with you on your sentiments, but not with your conclusions. Let me break it down.

"Non-combat oriented players, or those in the wrong ship for combat". Those players are victimized on a daily basis in EvE, nothing is going to change that. And I don't see anything in my proposals that would put them at any more risk than usual. They can still set suicide gankers to red and see reds in system. They'd have more options for seeing a problem incoming, but that requires a bit of work and understanding of the game mechanics - same as the rest of the game. And people that new don't have the sort of assets that generally catch the eye of gankers. Any loss they might incur to a random gank would be minimal at best.

"Giving those pilots that are looking for a fight a too great of an advantage over those that aren't". I don't believe that's true. You can still set people to orange or red and see them in system. In case you missed it in my original post, everyone would be playing by the same rules. So people looking for a fight still have to find you, and my system would make it just as easy for you to hide as it does now. And again, you'd have more options for seeing a threat incoming.

"wolves as in gankers, gate gates, and roams". Gankers, gate camps (assuming that's what you meant), and roams already exist. And they would still have to find you. That does not change. Gate campers already have you at a chokepoint, nothing is going to chnage that. Gankers and roams still have to d-scan you out or combat probe you, and my system gives would-be victims the tools to react to both of those.


deck as in the number of ships or the fitting of said ships". Nothing I proposed changes anything there, so what are you talking about?

"Stack against as in the unfair advantage one can have over another when one is caught in the crosshairs in an industrial ship". That is going to happen regardless. According to the killboards, that happens plenty right now. Nothing in what I propose would change that either.

As for your second paragraph, again, I agree with the sentiments. High sec should be marginally safer for pilots through the punitive actions of Concord. Right now it is. My system, again, would not change that in the slightest. You mention flying blind, do aggressors suddenly have eyes everywhere that you don't? No.

The "delay local in accordance with security level" idea is interesting, but then it becomes a dev-imposed construct of limited advantage strictly for aggressors that defenders would have no tools to help themselves against. And where do we draw that line. 10 seconds per .1 security change? 1 minute? 30 seconds? We would have to place in a completely arbitrary number just for the sake of doing so. I don't want dev-imposed constructs of that nature to be necessary for nullsec. I want to give players on both sides of the coin the tools they need to make it work on their own. Isn't that the spirit of EvE?

Are my proposals perfect? Heck no. I just think it's better than what we've got. Do my proposals consider every fringe case and every single possible scenario in EvE? Probably not, but that's what I put myself out here with posting it in the first place - other people with more experience can chime in and point out exploits I might not be aware of so we can refine these ideas further. For that to work, I need specifics and examples. Screaming out someone please think of the newbies! doesn't help me much.

@Nikk those are some really fascinating ideas and points that were tossed around in that thread you linked. And that was back in 2012?

You are right, I had missed that. I really like some of those ideas, even better than my own. It seems so very odd that the UI and sensor systems in this game are so outdated and clunky when there's obviously been some good imput on them for a while.

In the past I've read through the threads in your signature, and now you've shown me this thread. What other gems do you have hiding around on the forums, I wonder?