These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#341 - 2015-04-06 15:04:39 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
In fact with this structure you have more risk : You can loose the structure, the reward is : you can find perma cloacker.

Actually what is the RISK for a perma cloacker ?


Adding to the game the OA is not reducing the risk in 0.0. YOuincrease isk, you must defend this building, you ad content for all play in 0.0. So yes it change the way to play in 0.0. But all the sov change, and with the new system this structure could be a must have, same for the gate to move fast.


To answer your question, the risk is simple.


That the players never come out to be attacked, at least not while you can react to them. Time invested has been wasted.
(In the case of the hunting pilot trying to desensitize their possible targets)
OR
That they will be ignored, and their account will have been effectively idle for no resulting effect. (in the case of the competing alliance scenario below)


To even consider using the so-called AFK cloaking tactic, their must be a benefit.
You either intend to desensitize the local inhabitants to your name being listed, thereby neutralizing the intel, following which you will attack in some fashion.
OR
You are employed by a competing alliance, and they want to stress the systems by making the players either move or cease activities.



You don't answer: where is actually the risk for perma cloacker? i answer if you want, only when he comes to the system first time. After no risk.

With OA the advantage is to create more risk for defender (loose this building) , and for the perma cloacker (who can be a target). Ho and if you want disrupt local you can deploy your own OA if i understand... but in this case the perma cloacker must defend is OA to. Sound interesting no ?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#342 - 2015-04-06 15:34:16 UTC
I have not read the entire thread, so this may be repetitious.

An array that effects things in a neighboring system. For example, I turn on my array, and your local becomes delayed.

New stargates: Lore (for example, the chronicle "Old Man's Star") says there needs to be a gate at both ends before there is a connection. So how do we get a gate in a new solar system? Two ways:

Get there via a wormhole. This will require quite a bit of searching, but it will happen, especially if a player network for cooperation springs up. ("I found a system near you. Want to buy the hole's location?")

Get there via warp drive. Our warp drive goes 1 light-year in 2 to 6 hours, so interstellar warping is possible, although not implemented in the game at present. This may also make for interesting game-play options, as it would give players new ways to invade; just warp there.

I note that Jove space recently lost all it's gates. Maybe we need to replace them.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#343 - 2015-04-06 15:55:53 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

To answer your question, the risk is simple.


That the players never come out to be attacked, at least not while you can react to them. Time invested has been wasted.
(In the case of the hunting pilot trying to desensitize their possible targets)
OR
That they will be ignored, and their account will have been effectively idle for no resulting effect. (in the case of the competing alliance scenario below)


To even consider using the so-called AFK cloaking tactic, their must be a benefit.
You either intend to desensitize the local inhabitants to your name being listed, thereby neutralizing the intel, following which you will attack in some fashion.
OR
You are employed by a competing alliance, and they want to stress the systems by making the players either move or cease activities.



You don't answer: where is actually the risk for perma cloacker? i answer if you want, only when he comes to the system first time. After no risk.

Why should risk exist for the cloaked player, that does not equally apply to logged out / POS sitting / station docked players?

The past comparisons to these other safe activities tend to be half truths, if not misleading.
We are all operating ships in space, whether out in the open, behind a cloak, POS shields, or station walls.

Any benefit to the cloaked player, is entirely within the control of the non-cloaked players.
If the non-cloaked players maintain their activities uninterrupted, the cloaked player has no impact.
If the cloaked player has no overwhelming threat, their is no cause to interrupt activities.

Dictateur Imperator wrote:
With OA the advantage is to create more risk for defender (loose this building) , and for the perma cloacker (who can be a target). Ho and if you want disrupt local you can deploy your own OA if i understand... but in this case the perma cloacker must defend is OA to. Sound interesting no ?


I want the cloaked and PvE players to stop avoiding each other.
I understand and respect how neither should expect to survive an encounter against a combat fitted PvP ship, but I feel covops and PvE should be one of our foundations for content.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#344 - 2015-04-06 17:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Dictateur Imperator
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

To answer your question, the risk is simple.


That the players never come out to be attacked, at least not while you can react to them. Time invested has been wasted.
(In the case of the hunting pilot trying to desensitize their possible targets)
OR
That they will be ignored, and their account will have been effectively idle for no resulting effect. (in the case of the competing alliance scenario below)


To even consider using the so-called AFK cloaking tactic, their must be a benefit.
You either intend to desensitize the local inhabitants to your name being listed, thereby neutralizing the intel, following which you will attack in some fashion.
OR
You are employed by a competing alliance, and they want to stress the systems by making the players either move or cease activities.



You don't answer: where is actually the risk for perma cloacker? i answer if you want, only when he comes to the system first time. After no risk.

Why should risk exist for the cloaked player, that does not equally apply to logged out / POS sitting / station docked players?

The past comparisons to these other safe activities tend to be half truths, if not misleading.
We are all operating ships in space, whether out in the open, behind a cloak, POS shields, or station walls.

Any benefit to the cloaked player, is entirely within the control of the non-cloaked players.
If the non-cloaked players maintain their activities uninterrupted, the cloaked player has no impact.
If the cloaked player has no overwhelming threat, their is no cause to interrupt activities.

Dictateur Imperator wrote:
With OA the advantage is to create more risk for defender (loose this building) , and for the perma cloacker (who can be a target). Ho and if you want disrupt local you can deploy your own OA if i understand... but in this case the perma cloacker must defend is OA to. Sound interesting no ?


I want the cloaked and PvE players to stop avoiding each other.
I understand and respect how neither should expect to survive an encounter against a combat fitted PvP ship, but I feel covops and PvE should be one of our foundations for content.



You can take destroy building with new structure... and actually you can to : I want encourage people to play with more structure and more power. But to have more content in 0.0 and viable structure system with system activity: You must give to building power to help people to live in a system : Decloack is a good thing. And please we are writing about the new structure, stop try to save " unbalanced game play".

With the new system of structure building could be easier to tae, so they need to give better bonus as actual building.

If people are afraid cause "1 man can disrupt entire system with no counter". 0.0 will continue to die new structure or not. BUT with the OA we have a great counter to this problem; so more people in 0.0, more people to build structure, more content. OA can save the 0.0.


And pve player will encounter cloacked people more often with OA: They will decloack they to kill they. But cloacky people can wait this to make bait : more strategical thing to do you see ?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#345 - 2015-04-06 17:49:45 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Why should risk exist for the cloaked player, that does not equally apply to logged out / POS sitting / station docked players?

The past comparisons to these other safe activities tend to be half truths, if not misleading.
We are all operating ships in space, whether out in the open, behind a cloak, POS shields, or station walls.

Any benefit to the cloaked player, is entirely within the control of the non-cloaked players.
If the non-cloaked players maintain their activities uninterrupted, the cloaked player has no impact.
If the cloaked player has no overwhelming threat, their is no cause to interrupt activities.

I want the cloaked and PvE players to stop avoiding each other.
I understand and respect how neither should expect to survive an encounter against a combat fitted PvP ship, but I feel covops and PvE should be one of our foundations for content.



You can take destroy building with new structure... and actually you can to : I want encourage people to play with more structure and more power. But to have more content in 0.0 and viable structure system with system activity: You must give to building power to help people to live in a system : Decloack is a good thing. And please we are writing about the new structure, stop try to save " unbalanced game play".


This new structure won't improve the game, if we ignore the keystone which is that PvE perceives cloaked ships as overwhelming.

All it will do, is either eject cloaked ships, benefiting PvE's safety, or require players to guard PvE in some fashion.
As we have already defined as undesirable the need for players to babysit miners and ratters, that likely leaves the PvE players reshipping into hulls designed to eject cloaked pilots.

This could be indirectly balanced, if the defending pilots are required to be proactive, in order to stop a cloaked threat before it kills.
Otherwise, all it will do is create a pointless circle of pilot A chasing Pilot B, with no sustainable presence ultimately removing the cloaked player.

If cloaked play becomes ultimately pointless, it will stop.
If the cloaked play simply stops, for any reason, PvE in sov null goes meaningfully unchecked.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#346 - 2015-04-06 20:09:03 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.

The Rules:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Cade Windstalker
#347 - 2015-04-06 22:40:49 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I have not read the entire thread, so this may be repetitious.

An array that effects things in a neighboring system. For example, I turn on my array, and your local becomes delayed.

New stargates: Lore (for example, the chronicle "Old Man's Star") says there needs to be a gate at both ends before there is a connection. So how do we get a gate in a new solar system? Two ways:

Get there via a wormhole. This will require quite a bit of searching, but it will happen, especially if a player network for cooperation springs up. ("I found a system near you. Want to buy the hole's location?")

Get there via warp drive. Our warp drive goes 1 light-year in 2 to 6 hours, so interstellar warping is possible, although not implemented in the game at present. This may also make for interesting game-play options, as it would give players new ways to invade; just warp there.

I note that Jove space recently lost all it's gates. Maybe we need to replace them.


Keep in mind that the story of Old Man Star also pre-dates the modern Jump Drive (I believe) so it's possible that a new Gate system could allow you to, initially, project a special Cyno into the target system in orbit around a planet (in other words at a fixed and very campable point) and thus allow you to launch a Construction Freighter or whatever through to build the gate on the other side.

Also very much in favor of the possibilities offered by replacing gates in Jove space... :3

Maybe there are Jovian relics to loot, new rats to fight, and all sorts of other shiny to go after...

Also I would laugh my arse off if Vale of the Silent, Tenal, and Cobalt Edge suddenly ended up as the most valuable space in the game due to proximity to Jove space. Lol
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#348 - 2015-04-07 03:15:31 UTC
Dear Dictateur Imperator and Nikk Narrel,

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

Sincerely,
The health of this thread.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Teck Togenada
Chroma Corp
Prismatic Legion
#349 - 2015-04-07 08:21:56 UTC
How about something like a radar for the observatory?

1. Put a small warp disruption bubble around it.
2. Would be directly interactable, player flies to it, points it in a direction and runs a scan, players with higher astrometric or some such skill can see smaller ships and greater distances
3. Ships are revealed according to sig radius, large ships would be seen easily, small ships would require higher skills
4. Remote use of the observatory would give information about large fleets / battleship and larger ships

Could lead to some interesting gameplay and something to do when you're out of relic/data sites to run in your null.
Erasmus Grant
Order of the Eclipse
Triumvirate.
#350 - 2015-04-07 08:35:24 UTC
As someone who recommended OAs like structure awhile back I would like cloak pinning to be a proactive activity that is enable by a OA and needs a small fleet to work in conjunction with it requiring the cloaks scout,to be proactive to avoid bring detected.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#351 - 2015-04-07 10:31:18 UTC
I'll stay away from the afk-cloaking trollbaiting this thread is slowly sliding into and just throw out a couple of ideas I'd like for the OAs:

- Limited range: as a means to encourage more diversity in space, don't make this thing's effects system-wide. Maybe a couple of AUs, extendable via mods or rigs, but a significant effect within it's radius. Skirting around Observatory ranges as you gather intel should be a valuable player skill.

- Make them destructible: goes without saying, I want to be able to disable these things as a prelude for a covert operation in the system, preferably by applying dps and getting a km, but if you want to go with the sov-wand method, that's ok too, I guess. Some basic guns for self defense would be nice, but nothing that a small fleet can't incap with a bit of effort; this is an observation post, not a fortress, the guns are there to encourage you to go hit something else, not to fight off an assault.

- Dscan modification: I'd like to be able to project false dscan results by using this thing. It would serve to confuse roamers... until they learned the pattern of false echoes, that is. Ideally you'd be rewarded for maintaining the charade and modifying the false result list often, but if you neglected it attackers could just filter out the stuff they know is fake. (I realize this is probably code-intensive and would need to come with a much-needed rework of sensors and dscan :cough: hull-based dscan range :cough:)

- Needs a player to perform advanced functions: pretty straight-forward, you should recieve some passive effects from having a network of OAs in system, but if you want more power you need to go to the OA and interface with it, making yourself vulnerable.

- And last but not least, and tying in with points 1 and 4, you sould need a network of OAs to get access to advanced functions, just like with probes or (irl) sonobuoys. A single OA should give some basic functionality on it's own, but stuff like dscan-spoofing, cloaky detection (if implemented) or any effects on warp (modified minimum warp range?) should require several structures working together.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#352 - 2015-04-07 13:12:13 UTC
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
I'll stay away from the afk-cloaking trollbaiting this thread is slowly sliding into and just throw out a couple of ideas I'd like for the OAs:

- Limited range: as a means to encourage more diversity in space, don't make this thing's effects system-wide. Maybe a couple of AUs, extendable via mods or rigs, but a significant effect within it's radius. Skirting around Observatory ranges as you gather intel should be a valuable player skill.

- Make them destructible: goes without saying, I want to be able to disable these things as a prelude for a covert operation in the system, preferably by applying dps and getting a km, but if you want to go with the sov-wand method, that's ok too, I guess. Some basic guns for self defense would be nice, but nothing that a small fleet can't incap with a bit of effort; this is an observation post, not a fortress, the guns are there to encourage you to go hit something else, not to fight off an assault.

- Dscan modification: I'd like to be able to project false dscan results by using this thing. It would serve to confuse roamers... until they learned the pattern of false echoes, that is. Ideally you'd be rewarded for maintaining the charade and modifying the false result list often, but if you neglected it attackers could just filter out the stuff they know is fake. (I realize this is probably code-intensive and would need to come with a much-needed rework of sensors and dscan :cough: hull-based dscan range :cough:)

- Needs a player to perform advanced functions: pretty straight-forward, you should recieve some passive effects from having a network of OAs in system, but if you want more power you need to go to the OA and interface with it, making yourself vulnerable.

- And last but not least, and tying in with points 1 and 4, you sould need a network of OAs to get access to advanced functions, just like with probes or (irl) sonobuoys. A single OA should give some basic functionality on it's own, but stuff like dscan-spoofing, cloaky detection (if implemented) or any effects on warp (modified minimum warp range?) should require several structures working together.




Just no , new structure can be fitted. let player choose if nullification or no in fit.

For the range we can imagine more like LY range, this building is L . Means cost near an actual outpost and be destructible. So system range is the minimum. Other case just imagine how many you need in system of 120 AU ... just a joke and said bye bye to this system .

Need a player to perform ? Yes and no. I explain: Gme play while be boring if you need to click to refresh every 5 sec/local ect... But need player to change configuration of course, need player to detect a colloquy ship of course.

I think an interesting thing s the number of OA if the range is in LY (other case cost a lot ... for a lot of risk of destruction, remember entices link, not bashing, easy to take/destroy). We can imagine if you are in a system of Oa you will access to all functionality . After you have a base range of 2 LY , each 1LY your OA lost 50% of efficiency remaining (1LY=50% of initial 2LY=25%o initial) .
And you can have 2 rig for this structure : 1 increase the range (tech 1 to 3LY, tech 2 to 5LY) And an other rigs who make you looze less power by ly (25% t1 and 10% T2).

Exemple of impact base OA at 2LY : refresh local is not instant, but 25% of actual speed (who is instant) so we can imagine local take 4 sec to be refresh. And 16 min to decloack one cloacker (against 4 for 100%)
Perfect OA at 5 LY : zproximately 60% efficiency so local refresh every 1.8 sec.
But now imagine you have more 0A : they have cumulative force : so in a system you can have cumulation of power of AU to improve to 500% maximum (an it will cost a lot to do this, maybe create a rid T1 who allow to Oa to have 150 % power base, and 250% T2).
What does it means, it means if you have 2 OA perfect in same system (will cost you a LOT of isk, we can imagine near 100B only for this) yo can have 500% power: detect cloack in 40 sec, more efficiency to disrupt D-scan ect.

OA war : We can imagine you have some OA on your player empire, and imagine you have 500 % of power in your frontline system. But your enemy is at range in LY with some OA to: Enemy can decide to decrease your power :
- For each 1% of power of your enemy they have at range you will loose 1% of your power.
- Your defensive power is 500% maximum
-You can 't drop bellow 10% of efficiency for each fonction of OA if you have an OA on system , 25% with a T1 defensive rig, and 50% T2 rig. (so you must choose carefully your 're rig, a offensive combinaison can be more power+defensive rig, but if you do it you can't have a large range on your OA).Unless you choose it by offensive mode.
-In system with OA local is like now : instant, and can't be disrupt below. (To generate interesting fight to down OA if you want blind your opponent.). Unless you choose it by offensive mode.
-Offensive mode cost fuel.
- If you send you're OA in offensive mode each % send in offense can't be use for other OA normal usage. So if you're OA are 100% offensive you will have no local/no power of normal OA. The offensive power distribution work like defensive power distribution.
-You need 24 H to switch.
-The same entity can"t have more of 2 OA in same system.
-An offensive OA in a system disrupt OA allied/ennemi in the same system (so if you have a 250 % OA in a system and send in offensive mode, if you have an other 250% OA you make 250-250 =0).
-If you disrupt the OA system : You disrupt the force he sent in other system by the same amount. TO understand it : if you have an OA offensive who make the defensive system loss 20% of OA efficiency , this 20% are repercuted in each system n range of the OA.


If you want more mathematical detail about my proposal of offensive/defensive OA ask here or PM.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#353 - 2015-04-07 13:53:11 UTC
For a structure that provides or modifies intel, I believe requires vulnerability to solo or small groups.

As a trade off, I would recommend an AWACs style stop-gap measure be available.

A Command ship, which allowed a three part warfare link system to be active. This system would provide comparable benefits to the OA, but require the ship to be both online and active, and in open space away from any anchored structures due to interference issues.
(The three part link meaning that all three slots would be used by this system to operate, effectively dedicating this ship to the purpose)

These AWACs Command ships would have offensive value, as they could provide such benefits to friendly forces in hostile territory.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#354 - 2015-04-07 14:01:39 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
stuff


I'll try to adress your post as I understand it.

I think you're a bit over-optimistic if you expect cross-constellation effects from this structure. Myriad of coding problems come to mind, knowing how the EVE engine handles systems. Also, I live near a 120AU system, and really like the variety it gives... it's surely hard to hunt down a hostile in it, but it's also easy to get lost there when you don't want to be found. I once hid a marauder in plain sight while a red gang wasted time warping back and forth, and think this kind of variety in system sizes should not go to waste because of these structures.

That said, if the new map is any indication, we might yet see what you want become reality, just not anytime soon.

We mostly agree on the involvement level required to use the OA, but let me point you to wormholes, where people click dscan every 2 seconds, and cry bloody murder every time someone proposes dscan automation. Not everything should be simplified under the banner of "it's boring gameplay", because in some parts of EVE, that's the difference between competence and failure.

"OA war" as you call it... makes little sense to me. If you want to decrease the effectiveness of an enemy OA, why don't you go put some holes in it? It opens up much more interesting possibilities than a by-the-numbers tug of war between structures with little player interaction.

You certainly seem to have thought out an extensive system to reduce the effectiveness of hostile strucures, but we're still uncertain on what they do, so such speculation is a tad weird. I've gone back to the dev blog to check, and it seems they want to go with the Entosis mechanic for OAs, which is meh in my book. I would prefer if they were M structures and thus susceptible to conventional attacks, but w/e, CCP will do what CCP will do.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#355 - 2015-04-07 15:37:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dictateur Imperator
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
stuff


I'll try to adress your post as I understand it.

I think you're a bit over-optimistic if you expect cross-constellation effects from this structure. Myriad of coding problems come to mind, knowing how the EVE engine handles systems. Also, I live near a 120AU system, and really like the variety it gives... it's surely hard to hunt down a hostile in it, but it's also easy to get lost there when you don't want to be found. I once hid a marauder in plain sight while a red gang wasted time warping back and forth, and think this kind of variety in system sizes should not go to waste because of these structures.

That said, if the new map is any indication, we might yet see what you want become reality, just not anytime soon.

We mostly agree on the involvement level required to use the OA, but let me point you to wormholes, where people click dscan every 2 seconds, and cry bloody murder every time someone proposes dscan automation. Not everything should be simplified under the banner of "it's boring gameplay", because in some parts of EVE, that's the difference between competence and failure.

"OA war" as you call it... makes little sense to me. If you want to decrease the effectiveness of an enemy OA, why don't you go put some holes in it? It opens up much more interesting possibilities than a by-the-numbers tug of war between structures with little player interaction.

You certainly seem to have thought out an extensive system to reduce the effectiveness of hostile strucures, but we're still uncertain on what they do, so such speculation is a tad weird. I've gone back to the dev blog to check, and it seems they want to go with the Entosis mechanic for OAs, which is meh in my book. I would prefer if they were M structures and thus susceptible to conventional attacks, but w/e, CCP will do what CCP will do.






In fact all the interest of OA war (and you can imagine it for other strucure like gate for change the effect of system). Is to give to people choice : Make invasion but you are lake of intel (but if you are a lot and opponent few it will work, but maybe you have a lot of lost). Or prepare invasion, tae more time , cost more but safer for fight.

Yes Eve is not a pur pvp game i just give idea to make harder to kill people who live in a little territory who they occur and stuff a lot. But easier to take enemy territory if they are few desisted and few defender. Who care your enemy know you arrive if you know in this constellation they are 50 maximum and you are 400 to come ? But if you try to attack area with 400 enemy and you are 400 down enemy intel or reduce him could be a good thing.



For Coding problem : Some game mechanic already use this. It's just a complexification of the intel warfare. But it's not an obligation to win intel warfare to win the war. It could help but it's not because you win intel warfare you win war.

And for WH: WH are different to K-space, you can close your WH, you can't close K-space.



For Narell :
Small/medium group => ENTOSIS LINK

I disagree for command ship, i think it's a better value for capital/super capital who change they're impact for sov warfare after fuzzy sov. Give to they role to building when they are on field could be a great advantage for fleet. I agree that. But not for simple command ship at 200 M.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#356 - 2015-04-07 15:43:28 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
For Narell :
Small/medium group => ENTOSIS LINK

I disagree for command ship, i think it's a better value for capital/super capital who change they're impact for sov warfare after fuzzy sov. Give to they role to building when they are on field could be a great advantage for fleet. I agree that. But not for simple command ship at 200 M.

By that you are placing this capability out of practical reach for smaller groups, effectively creating a requirement for entry into this level of warfare.

Let's not forget, you intend to displace solo and small group using guerrilla tactics such as cloaking. Giving them no means to participate going forward seems to be a content killer for them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#357 - 2015-04-07 15:57:17 UTC
Narrel stop with your off topic. This topic is not about CLOACK, you have other topic for this, many thank.


And Entosis link make solo people can enter to the warfare. (like Factional warfare actually ...). So yes OA must be have strong power (other case people never build and if broken mechanic stay EVE will die).

Just explain to me how it's a threat for small people this mechanic ? In fact it's not a threat it's allow to more people to live in 0.0 . little entity with 1 constellation can just build a lot of OA in they're constellation and avoid to be disrupt by bigger entity. You just permit to create some "forteress". If you want attack fortress you will spend a lot of isk , or take a lot of risk (but with good reward, people in this "forteress maybe fly expensive ship).

If you want roam/have kill mail just go in bigger empire who not build a lot of OA, and how you could easy disrupt.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#358 - 2015-04-07 16:11:42 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Narrel stop with your off topic. This topic is not about CLOACK, you have other topic for this, many thank.

Not responding to this directly, it is a comment which smacks of rude intent to reply in this manner.


Dictateur Imperator wrote:
And Entosis link make solo people can enter to the warfare. (like Factional warfare actually ...). So yes OA must be have strong power (other case people never build and if broken mechanic stay EVE will die).

Just explain to me how it's a threat for small people this mechanic ? In fact it's not a threat it's allow to more people to live in 0.0 . little entity with 1 constellation can just build a lot of OA in they're constellation and avoid to be disrupt by bigger entity. You just permit to create some "forteress". If you want attack fortress you will spend a lot of isk , or take a lot of risk (but with good reward, people in this "forteress maybe fly expensive ship).

If you want roam/have kill mail just go in bigger empire who not build a lot of OA, and how you could easy disrupt.

You are flipping over the issue.

The problem is not about threats directed at small groups.
The problem is that it makes small groups less meaningful as threats, unless they can make use of capital ships in order to have the AWACs equivalent support. It creates a barrier to entry for them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#359 - 2015-04-07 18:14:06 UTC
You have no barrier of entry: You don't need to control intel to disrupt activity or take sov. It can help only. So i don't see where the OA make a barrier to go in 0.0. If you want live in 0.0 you are not in a pvp game but in a sandbox game. It means you need some industriel.

The goal of CCP is not to kill all barrier, but make they are more easier to unlock : OA can help to unlock, but he is not mandatory to have your own 0.0 .

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#360 - 2015-04-07 18:39:33 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
You have no barrier of entry: You don't need to control intel to disrupt activity or take sov. It can help only. So i don't see where the OA make a barrier to go in 0.0. If you want live in 0.0 you are not in a pvp game but in a sandbox game. It means you need some industriel.

The goal of CCP is not to kill all barrier, but make they are more easier to unlock : OA can help to unlock, but he is not mandatory to have your own 0.0 .


Again, you seem to not understand the point, and assumed I meant something else.

I said this:

You are flipping over the issue.

The problem is not about threats directed at small groups.
The problem is that it makes small groups less meaningful as threats, unless they can make use of capital ships in order to have the AWACs equivalent support. It creates a barrier to entry for them.


My point is regarding small groups, clearly not capable of taking sov, that will have reduced capacity to disrupt activity.
Activity disruption is content, whether you embrace it or despise it.

You are taking away from them one set of tools, sustainable cloaking, but suggesting the resources previously sufficient for them will no longer be so.
(Before, they needed a few cloaked ships, possibly a BLOPs to help move them around, and local was a universal presence)
(Now, you possibly deny them local, suggest they should need a carrier at minimum for an AWACs equivalent of the OA structure, and point to entosis links as if taking sov they cannot maintain would be desirable to them)

You aren't addressing the sandbox, you are excluding valid forms of play should they find a carrier exceeds their disposable income. You are telling them how they should play, rather than offering the same range of options they previously enjoyed.

Keep the AWACs style ship comparable to the OA based on a command ship, and at least it keeps the small group integrity with less disruption.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...