Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because that's a false equivalency. The invulnerability of a cloak is basically absolute, barring monumental "trying to take a Super Capital into High-Sec" levels of stupidity, which really really don't count in a discussion of game balance. The "absolute" nature of Local as an intel source is limited. It tells you whether or not someone is in the system with you, but not where, what they're flying, or anything else about them. So, in-effect, we could also say that Local is simply a base-line level of Intel.

Wormhole Space is unique because it removes this base-line. That's part of the character of the space and it has a definite effect on the play-style of the people there. Some level of intel is required in order for the game to function. If players can't find each other then there can be no fights and no content. Similarly if players can't react to each other then the game ends up feeling unfair.

Going visiting in Wormhole Space I can feel completely safe as long as I have a cloaked ship because I will never show up on D-Scan or probes except for a fraction of a second when I launch probes of my own. Unless someone manages to catch me on a hole as I jump through I'm never going to be caught.

Also, as I've said about a dozen times here, I don't flatly object to tinkering with Local's mechanics, but I think it should be done carefully and as a separate thing from the introduction of the OA because Local and its mechanics are very basic to current gameplay and should not be removed or tinkered with without significant consideration and feedback from players. I know for a fact you don't have the second and from the one-dimensional way you're trying to couch this I feel like you don't have the first either.



Well, I know I said things in there and meant them, so maybe you didn't understand what I wrote?

So, for a start, if the OA replaces local as an intel mechanic then it's only doing so for the defenders, so removing it is a buff to defense. Plus, if the OA replaces local then there's also no reason to remove it. Of course the OA isn't going to completely replace Local for all parties, so your original argument doesn't really work either.



I'd respond but really this more or less sums things up:



Except that whether or not you feel that it's a problem is subjective. If you're the defender you're thankful it's there, if you're the attacker it makes things inconvenient. Mostly though, in high and low sec, you just don't think about it. At least in my experience.

We rarely see anyone complain about local in Low and Null because it's just a fact of life for most players there. They use it but don't really think about how, whether that's to notice the 20 gankers in system even though they're off grid or to track down someone's off-grid boosting Alt.

There has been considerable feedback from the players. There are two distinct camps:

1. PvE camp, leave local, remove AFK cloaking--i.e. nerf cloaks.

2. Remove local camps (and replace it with a new intel mechanic): This camp is fine with moving towards local being a chat channel and putting in a new intel system that allows players who are active to gather intel so help them manage the risks of living in null.

This thread is part of that feedback.

This is flatly incorrect. The only thing that needs to happen for that advantage to disappear is a few seconds to a minute worth of distraction. Even if the player is at a safe spot that's enough time to launch probes and get a fix. A cloaked pilot can cloak up 200km off a gate and walk away for an hour with absolutely zero functional risk to his ship, unless he's doing something monumentally stupid like streaming his location on Twitch...



Also wrong, even within current chat mechanics. The chat could be set up just like W-Space (which is still Local) or could even bet set to an intermediate where players don't show up for a few seconds to a few minutes after they enter a system.



Yes it is. There's nothing anywhere to indicate that the vulnerability window doesn't apply to all structures that the E-Link can be used on. Current POSes are a Large sized structure and still have Time Zone based mechanics, so it's fairly obvious that time-zone based mechanics will apply to these structures as well.



That's a reason to remove local, not every reason.



We've already established that Local is not redundant. "Redundant: able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function." This is not the case, clearly per what you yourself just said. It's certainly not the "oh, well obviously we should remove Local" argument you seem to be taking it as.

Except that, clearly by evidence of killboards, Local is not perfect in practical terms, because people do die. Either they're not aligned or they're not paying attention, or one of a dozen other things. Cloaked ships die too, but by attacking something or moving through a gate, not sitting in a system cloaked to the point that the only example you could give to counter this was someone who had to go AFK for literally hours while leaving a public camera trained on his location, and it still took someone hours to find him.

This sounds to me like "CCP please make it easier to get free kills on these silly PvE pilots in my PvP game!" because gods forbid they have any ability to avoid you /blatantExagerationAndSarcasm

Seriously though, if we take your assumptions at face value and make the minimum possible implementation of the OA which is that it simply enables Local chat in Immediate Mode and that's removed when it is destroyed, then where does that leave things? The PvE pilots still dock up when you enter system, they won't come out and fight you any more than they do now, except now you can spend 40 minutes E-Linking a structure that may or may not shoot back at you instead of moving on to find someone who will fight, assuming it's even vulnerable. Then once you and the OA are gone they undock again, put up another OA, and go back to PvE.

Barring any objections you may have over my assumptions regarding vulnerability timers on OAs, is this broadly correct and why do you feel it's better than current mechanics? Just because you get to blow up something worth, if current POS prices are any indication, between ~100 and 500 million ISK, depending on the price-point they go for and cost of modules. You could probably cost them more ISK than that taking some Logi with you and running 40 minutes of high-value sites in your PvP ships.

Yeah, I already said, it is either "on" or "off" as like in WH space. Tinker is what I see as making minor/small changes. Shifting local over to WH space is patently not tinkering. You yourself have said that changing local in that way would be too much of a change.



Being aligned and watching local, with the current mechanics, is a dominant strategy (giving due credit to this last point). And as was also pointed out, dominant strategies should not be in a PvP game. Given that watching local and being aligned is a dominant strategy and would disappear without local...local is the problem. Fixing it means also "fixing" cloaks as well because we don't want them to become part of a dominant strategy either.

This is why most of the reasonable, long term, fix AFK cloaking and local people favor changing both. If we made local no longer a source of intel and did nothing to cloaks every roaming gang would have a cloaking ship with it.

I'm fine with putting risk on cloaks. What I am not fine with is leaving in a dominant strategy for one player. That is even worse. Because the other player really has no options then. That is no matter what strategy you pick you cannot alter the other players strategy. Further, for the player with a dominant strategy the outcomes are always favorable...otherwise the strategy is not dominant (barring mistakes of course, see the link down below about off-equilibrium path play).

CCP has a very long track record of changing things when one strategy becomes dominant. The nerf to nano-ships being an excellent example. I think in that change they even mentioned that they did not like it when a single strategy became the dominant form of play. Tracking titans were another example.



No, pretty sure it wont be. Look back on the first page, there was a strong indicator the OA will be allowed in WH space--i.e. it is in space where there simply is no sov. And there is every indication it will be anchorable in NPC null. In short, it is not a structure that is connected to Sov. As such it is NOT clear that it will only be vulnerable in the vulnerable "prime time" window. You are assuming it is, but I don't see much to support that assumption.




It doesn't have to be perfect, but merely dominant. Dominant strategies in a PvP game are bad, at the very leas they make the game boring in that if there are 2 dominant strategies for 2 players, then the outcome is entirely and totally predictable. And when the outcome is totally predictable then the game is boring and people quit. Note this encompasses both the way PvE players use local and AFK cloakers. I do not like the way PvE players use local. I also do not like AFK cloaking. I think both are very sub-optimal forms of play, with the latter only just barely being considered play under the broadest possible definition--you are playing if you are logged in.

So pointing to killboards is meaningless. Even if it is a dominant strategy it does not mean it will always work. In repeated games (i.e. PvP vs. PvE in null) you can have off-equilibrium path play. The way to think of it is you meant to play strategy A, but there is a small chance of actually playing B by "mistake". In this case you'd have people showing up on killboards who were clearly doing PvE...while watching local and being aligned was their dominant strategy. So your argument is, "Local is fine even though there is a dominant strategy (which is boring) because sometimes people make mistakes." This is a very bad approach to take towards game design and balance, IMO.

Edit: Just thought of another dominant strategy nerfed by CCP: drone assist/boot carriers.

Hopefully CCP doesn't just nerf AFK cloaking with this pass, as it would still leave the dominant strategy for the PvE pilot...watch local, be aligned.

Well...unless the hostile leave behind a cloaker that you are unaware of because the OA is down (and maybe the hostiles are just next door....). And do they always have an OA in system to replace it with? What if they want to camp a pipe in your space and take down the OA in a non-station system then camp the gates? What if they are planning an invasion and want to "blind" you so they start whacking your intel infrastructure? What if you can't use the OA's intel while docked?



First off, we don't have all the details, so there is still time to, hopefully, influence the Dev's position on this. Example being when the OA is vulnerable. 24/7 is probably too much, but maybe an expanded vulnerability window. Or maybe it isn't destroyed when hit with the e-link for 25-30 minutes maybe it is just offlined and to "turn it on" you have to hit it with your e-link. But is the hostile gang still there? Maybe you need to bring your own gang...possibly a fight? Maybe there is a subversion option as well?

The vulnerability window is simply a replacement for current Time Zone mechanics, aka Fuel. POSes run on these mechanics, as do Sov structures. Since Large sized structures are in the same size category as POSes and the logic behind Time Zone mechanics is that players should not have to defend their structures 24/7, it is logical to assume that the new Large structures will fall under Time Zone mechanics (as well as possibly Medium structures, since those equate to POCOs). Since we have not seen any new Time Zone mechanics other than the Vulnerability Window that work with an E-Link we must therefore assume that the Vulnerability Window applies to the OA and other Large Sized structures, they simply don't trigger the Nodes challenge. Whether or not they reinforce or simply blow up is unclear however.



I agree, actually, and that guy's argument is fantastic. That said, I'm still not 100% convinced that Local is the thing that needs to go or that it should go with the OA though, because at the end of the day I'm a really really pessimistic SOB when it comes to making too many changes too quickly to a game system. I very much prefer minimum potentially viable change, like adding more warp disrupting rats to sites and belts, adding a 2 minute delay to Local, or tinkering with the sites so being aligned out carries significant risk or penalty in some or all instances. Then observe the change, consider the results, and decide whether further change is needed or not.

Raphael is certainly correct that current Null PvE is in a Dominant Strategy state, but I think ripping out Local into a WH space state is still too drastic, even if it's somewhat replaced by the OA. For one it doesn't just inconvenience the defenders if their OA is destroyed, it severely impacts the attackers as well. They can't get an accurate count of players in system now, which makes it easier to miss potential targets, increases time spent in dead systems while they determine that no one is there, and makes it more dangerous to remain in enemy space.

Local is, at present, the intel basis of the game. Yes this is not desirable but it also means that ripping it out as an intel tool has far-reaching consequences and it's honestly impossible to predict them all. On the basis of Raphael's post I'll certainly agree that leaving dominant strategies in place is bad for the game (like Drake-fleets, Alpha Maelstroms, Titan AOE-DD, Skynetting, Garage Door cynos, and hopefully OGBs sometime this year, to name a few more... ) and I'll agree that the current combo of aligning and Local is one, but until or unless CCP come out and say that's what they feel the best solution is (because believe it or not I do trust their judgement as designers) I'm going to advocate for something with a softer touch but with hopefully the same or similar results.

If this sounds reasonable then can we avoid going on for another few pages and start brain-storming mechanics and stuff for the OA?

No. If the OA is going to nerf cloaks it has to be done via player effort. Simply anchoring a module that does the work for you is just bad.

It's an interesting idea, but I worry that this removes strategy and choice from the game on both sides. I think it's more interesting if the Gates have a bit more range and utility but can only connect to a single destination, that way the owners get to work to create a functioning logistics network, and the attackers can work to disrupt it. For example a hub system with a lot of gates going to different places is very powerful but it's also a giant target, and if you lose it you need to re-wire your entire gate network.

Having a single gate that connects to multiple others removes this strategic depth in most cases, and also lets you more or less completely avoid hostiles, unlike the current Jump Bridge system which requires some degree of gate travel to reach a destination.

I actually had what I thought was an interesting idea on how something like a counter-cloaking mechanic could work, as well as something to create a more interesting intel game.

Part of this that's somewhat independent of the main idea is that I think any module or whatever should have a less powerful version that can be fitted to ships. This would allow for deeper intel gameplay in all areas of space, not just Null and without the investment of a massive hundred million(s) ISK structure (which are also notoriously non-portable).

For the actual mechanics I'm thinking of something that combines the current probing interface with post-WW2 era submarine hunting tactics (if necessary the Swedish can be consulted on how to find submarines ). This is not just probing for Cloakies. IMO that would be boring, but it a successful anti-cloaking mechanic should allow them to be probed down.

The idea is that the structure has a supply of Subspace Sensors which are deployed like Probes using a similar interface. Launching these Probes consumes a Probe and some Strontium, probes may or may not be recoverable. These Subspace Sensors can only be launched one at a time and have a fixed or only loosely adjustable radius. You can't just cover the entire system with a single beacon the way you can with most Probes. They also have a reasonably long time between probes, though I'm unsure what sort of timer would be appropriate I'd start with a bear minimum of 30 seconds with the caveat that that's probably too low, and the Subspace Sensors don't last in space longer than 30 minutes to an hour. Whether these Subspace Sensors can be recovered and re-used or not they should not be movable like Probes once deployed.

An active Subspace Sensor tells you if there is a cloaked ship in its radius of detection similar to how a one-probe hit on a ship or other object does in the scan window, and contribute to the Scan Probe strength used to scan down the Cloaked ship. However, the ship is still cloaked and receives a significant bonus to avoid being probed down so you need time or a talented prober to find the target ship. If this isn't sufficiently threatening maybe a Cloaked ship that's been locked onto with a scan result can be forceably decloaked by the OA or by expending a Subspace Sensor.

So, where does the counter-play come in?

As soon as an active Subspace Sensor goes up a cloaked ship is automatically notified if it is within the radius, and the Subspace Sensor shows up on the overview of everyone within its area and can be warped to. The Subspace Sensor is a destructible object in space and can be destroyed fairly quickly by a fast acting Combat pilot, or they can elect to warp to somewhere currently not under the effects of a Subspace Sensor.

That's the core of the idea.

Optionally these Subspace Sensors could show roughly where a warp trail enters or exits their area of influence, giving them some utility in general intel as well as giving the hunting player a rough direction for where a cloaked ship may have gone for when they launch the next Subspace Sensor (or completely misleading information if the hunted pilot or pilots are clever).

The general goal of this is to provide tools for pressuring and hunting down cloaked pilots while giving the cloaked pilot ample ability and time to respond, but with pressure increasing over time unless the cloaked pilot takes risks by either leaving system or destroying a Subspace Sensor. If a ship mounted version is available it could even lead to a game of cat and mouse going both ways, with a Covert fleet deploying their own Subspace Sensors and probes to hunt down the enemy scanning ship and destroying it to take the pressure off.

Thoughts and/or your own vision for a mechanic ladies and gents?

Anyone that wants to take local away... Think about this:

PvP will go down drastically since you will have no idea if there's anyone to kill in that system unless you happen into a huge blob...

Sounds boring and lame...