These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#521 - 2015-06-02 16:28:43 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Lime Green wrote:
Some thoughts on player-controlled Gates:

1. I think we can all agree that Gate-connections should be unfiltered, i.e. it should never be possible to disallow a specific group of players to jump and still have the Gate usable by friendlies. Gates should be on or off for everyone.


I'm not in agreement... You can lock a door so why can't you lock a gate?

They should make it to where you have to have a key to access to gate to use it. If it was made similar to the bookmarking system where corporations have a corp wide key that can be copied by anyone in corp but also spies could make and distribute the keys, i think that could be interesting.

However, hostiles should be able to get temporary access by hacking the gate.

Anything that creates additional leverage, to the benefit of sov holding groups, will further entrench them.

Even now, aside from blobs intended to take space, there is little to threaten these groups on a meaningful level.

Roams? Only the careless and the deliberate become involved with these. So little effort is needed for providing intel to avoid these guys, they are effectively consensual PvP.

Cloaked ships sneaking through? Sure, so long as noone notices them in each sov system they pass. Putting that name into an intel channel, noting they seem to be alone, and players are obviously savvy enough to fill in enough details.
Even assuming they make it to a target system unannounced, they are still glaringly obvious in the pilot list.

And you would suggest enhancing this already effective defense, by making the existing gate bottlenecks even harder to get passed?

Doesn't sound like a content driving approach, to me.

If PvE risk drops down much lower for PvP encounters, they may as well automate it, so players can get back to playing with each other, instead of NPC #1599732, damage type thermal, defensive weakness EM.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#522 - 2015-06-03 10:37:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Stuff


I'm not sure what you are talking about, perhaps you misread what i said.

I assume that "gates" we are talking about in this thread will be player constructed gates that will exist alongside the empire gates we currently have. In effect these player gates would replace jump brides networks, which hostiles currently don't have access to.

Now i'm saying that there should be a way for hostile to use the the player built gates but it should require certain prerequisites to be met... So please explain how that enriches the sov holders gameplay but not everyone els?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#523 - 2015-06-03 12:59:50 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Stuff


I'm not sure what you are talking about, perhaps you misread what i said.

I assume that "gates" we are talking about in this thread will be player constructed gates that will exist alongside the empire gates we currently have. In effect these player gates would replace jump brides networks, which hostiles currently don't have access to.

Now i'm saying that there should be a way for hostile to use the the player built gates but it should require certain prerequisites to be met... So please explain how that enriches the sov holders gameplay but not everyone els?

Ah...

See, I was under the impression this would be ANY gate, not just player constructed.

The wording allowed me to consider the possibility that a change to normal gates could be possible, to support the existence of player built items.
(The player built items becoming one means to bypass, like the covert cloak bypasses a cyno jammer)

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Lime Green
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#524 - 2015-06-05 02:50:31 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Stuff


I'm not sure what you are talking about, perhaps you misread what i said.

I assume that "gates" we are talking about in this thread will be player constructed gates that will exist alongside the empire gates we currently have. In effect these player gates would replace jump brides networks, which hostiles currently don't have access to.

Now i'm saying that there should be a way for hostile to use the the player built gates but it should require certain prerequisites to be met... So please explain how that enriches the sov holders gameplay but not everyone els?


I assumed that player controlled gates would be the only gates, and that they'd include currently existing and player-built gates.

Like Nikk said, owner-only gates would provide a mobility advantage to large sov-holding factions that might be too strong.

It's imo going to be very interesting to see how CCP will fit new stargates and the jump-fatigue system together.
Kasumi Gotto
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#525 - 2015-06-09 21:04:46 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:



  • Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like tampering with Star Map filters, D-scan disruption, ship intelligence disruption, player tracking capabilities or being able to pinpoint cloak users

I am not sure how much I'd like having the ability to pinpoint cloak users. It rather takes something away from the module itself. Other than that, the thought of being able to peek into a system within a certain light year radius from your observatory does have some appeal if that is what is planned for it.

This whole idea though would be very troubling for WH space dwellers though.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.


I can't put my finger on it but this seems excessive. I do like the logistics of it but then it would feel like , why bother having an NPC gate system when you can make your own? There would have to be some kind of equal balancing out of it.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#526 - 2015-06-13 04:09:35 UTC
Kasumi Gotto wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:



  • Observatory Arrays focus on intelligence gathering and disruption tools, like tampering with Star Map filters, D-scan disruption, ship intelligence disruption, player tracking capabilities or being able to pinpoint cloak users

I am not sure how much I'd like having the ability to pinpoint cloak users. It rather takes something away from the module itself. Other than that, the thought of being able to peek into a system within a certain light year radius from your observatory does have some appeal if that is what is planned for it.

This whole idea though would be very troubling for WH space dwellers though.

CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • Gates focus on movement, like warp speeds, agility and mass in the system they're deployed, affect jump capabilities, alter ship movement inside a solar system, allow vessels to travel to other solar system and modify wormhole behaviors.


I can't put my finger on it but this seems excessive. I do like the logistics of it but then it would feel like , why bother having an NPC gate system when you can make your own? There would have to be some kind of equal balancing out of it.



In fact bonus must be be in all system in the twice case : Other way you're bonus like pinpointed become useless.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#527 - 2015-06-14 10:26:15 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:


In fact bonus must be be in all system in the twice case : Other way you're bonus like pinpointed become useless.



Why? Give me a good reason as to why making the effects system-wide allows for better gameplay than making it limited in range so that you can skirt around these devices in a system.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#528 - 2015-06-14 14:03:15 UTC
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
Dictateur Imperator wrote:


In fact bonus must be be in all system in the twice case : Other way you're bonus like pinpointed become useless.



Why? Give me a good reason as to why making the effects system-wide allows for better gameplay than making it limited in range so that you can skirt around these devices in a system.



Just to avoid perma cloack in a system. If you must deploy 20-30 building/system the price will be ... Because if you said 2 AU, all system of1 AU system diameter need only one. Make the calculation for 50 AU system. You don't need 50... you need a lot more.
Said 10 AU i will said the same : for 5 AU system diameter you need 1, for other you need ... a lot more. And remember you have some inclined system, they are not only in one plan. A lot of complexity for nothing. So building useless.

If it work in the entire system: Mae him an interesting target, good risk VS reward, and counter thing like perma cloack.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#529 - 2015-06-16 16:16:12 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
Dictateur Imperator wrote:


In fact bonus must be be in all system in the twice case : Other way you're bonus like pinpointed become useless.



Why? Give me a good reason as to why making the effects system-wide allows for better gameplay than making it limited in range so that you can skirt around these devices in a system.



Just to avoid perma cloack in a system. If you must deploy 20-30 building/system the price will be ... Because if you said 2 AU, all system of1 AU system diameter need only one. Make the calculation for 50 AU system. You don't need 50... you need a lot more.
Said 10 AU i will said the same : for 5 AU system diameter you need 1, for other you need ... a lot more. And remember you have some inclined system, they are not only in one plan. A lot of complexity for nothing. So building useless.

If it work in the entire system: Mae him an interesting target, good risk VS reward, and counter thing like perma cloack.


Oh noes, heavens forbid you have to actually invest into a few structures per system to totally negate cloaks in it.

See? I can use strawmen too Lol

In all seriousness, I think you're just being lazy. Earlier in the thread you asked for constellation wide effects from a single structure and capture events to disable the structure, which is mind-numbingly risk-averse imho.
By making the structures have a sub-system area of effect, you'll make people look at their maps to decide if they want to risk going to a site that's in uncharted territory and risk flying into a cloaky, or if they'd prefer to stay close to the OA and have their security blanket.
Myth Shor
Angelic CO
#530 - 2015-06-17 03:14:59 UTC
If you are getting rid of P.O.S will you be making any changes to how the rorquals core works?

I really don't fancy sitting out in space with the core rinning for 6 min, might as well put a big sign above my head for all the gankbears to see saying please kill me.

Or will we be retiltiveley safe with these new structure?
Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#531 - 2015-06-23 03:26:12 UTC
If these are going to affect the in-game map, then you really need to work on the in-game map, because the beta thing is absolutely atrocious. It is actually worse then the old map, especially because of the inherent lag comparatively.
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia
#532 - 2015-06-23 17:52:21 UTC
Everything about both these structures I hate completely. Just completely can this idea. It will be a nightmare. You just don't know it yet.
Wylde Kardde
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#533 - 2015-06-30 16:15:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Wylde Kardde
Observatory Array Argument:

I'm not experienced in 0.0 politics but I figured I'd post an idea. I was reading about how real life militaries are all about UAV drones these days as "force multipliers" regarding the amount of intelligence you can gather cheaply & without putting any lives in danger. I tied this somehow to EvE and thought would people like a sort of flyable "Pod / Scan probe-ish / drone" that can fly around and visually spot stuff without threat of losing a clone however it can only reach a few systems or light years from point of origin or have it require Sovereignty. The player's clone could be in a drone ship with this module running much like command ships sitting offgrid with Links on. Maybe make it a capital sized module (carriers) in the case of designating its preferred areas of usage. Any comments on restrictions to keep from being too overpowered or a bad idea altogether are welcome.

The Origional Intention of Pirate BS's... pvp

Nightmare X-type Burn out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyajGLoe0Kc
Albert Spear
Non scholae sed vitae
#534 - 2015-07-13 13:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Albert Spear
Random thoughts on gates.

1) Gates should come in a range of sizes, that have limits on mass/distance projection. The larger the gate (or the more projection modules fitted in a gate) the more fuel it uses and the more mass it can project or it can project the same amount of mass a longer distance

2) Gates should be able to either shotgun into a system -OR- be paired with another gate to create a route between the 2 locations. Tuning the gate to a different "partner" gate or a different system should take time and there should be modules available to lower that time.

3) "Mr Wizard" deployables should be available to jump back to the gate you left, they should match ship sizes and be a dropable item, so if your ship is killed, the deployable could drop, giving the person who retrieves it access - 1 time - thru your gate. (if you don't understand the reference to Mr. Wizard, you don't watch enough old cartoons). The deployable self destructs on use.

4) Gates should have logs that the owner can access, and they should have tolls based on standings.

5) Larger gates should take more time to deploy in a system - and that time should go down depending on Sov status in Nul

6) Gates should take time to de-activate after the fuel runs out, leaving a window of time when someone can sneak in

7) If you have a Mr. Wizard deployable, even if the gate is inactive, you can use it 1 time to come home.

8) T1, T2, and Faction versions may be available - rather than mess with specifics of the capabilities - mess with the fuel use rates, and number of slots available to configure them.

9) Size small gates should be deployable from a hauler and should have very low mass/distance limits if most of the slots are not used for upgrading this capability (e.g. you want to move stuff, then you have no room for defense or offensive modules). Fuel space should be the final barrier to limit the mass/distance of the gate.

10) A single use deployable for "getting out of dodge" on a random jump should be considered - sized to the ship (e.g. Frigates use a small, battleships a large).

11) Skills should be added for gate skills to the skill tree.

Again this is random thoughts. I have read some really great posts here and then used them in my thinking about how I might want to use gates. Your milage will vary. Tactical considerations and balance have been ignored in this post for the sake of throwing ideas against the wall.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#535 - 2015-07-14 05:53:11 UTC
Okay, I know that I'm going to be shot with reactive sh#t thrower for this (and for generally sensationalist style behind this proposal), but there it goes...

1) Remove those API feeds that aren't character information APIs;
2) Remove watchlisting or make it only possible by mutual agreement;
3) Allow observatories to gather exactly that kind of intel that was outsourced to APIs and watchlists previously (only in their systems or effective range, obviously).

Option: leave system statistics API functional for non-sov non-WH systems.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Punx Evangeline
MHE Industries
Cybernetica
#536 - 2015-07-14 21:37:18 UTC
Can we please, please make our own deadspace pockets? Somewhere where we can build something grand?
Absolon Echerie
Roving Guns Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#537 - 2015-07-15 12:45:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Absolon Echerie
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:
The "I h8s teh claockey camperz" portion of the player base must be creaming their sweat pants over this.

Having a large structure that is able to facilitate locating cloaked ships in system does make sense; see submarine warfare.

I could see these structures at their base level being able to detect the presence of a cloaked ship in-system, but not be able to show where they are. By adding service modules, rigs and/or modules this ability gets more precise or powerful.

A moderately equipped OA could give enough intel to friendlies on its own to get a general area for a cloaked ship then facilitate an active friendly player in tracking it down. The simple way for the cloaked player to avoid this would be to change position. Hence, AFK campers would be the most vulnerable.

A very specialized OA with all slots dedicated to locating cloaked ships could go so far as to make a cloaked ship "shimmer" for a couple seconds when it the OA "pings".

The OAs could also be used like scan probes. Deploy a main OA then smaller ones around the given solar system like one would deploy probes. If players wanted to protect the space directly surrounding something important, like an asteroid field or an Admin structure, then the smaller OAs could be anchored close by and offer the highest resolution/effectiveness for that area. If players want to secure a wider area, then the resolution wouldn't be as good. Sure, some players might go hog wild and anchor dozens of OAs in a system, but its their ISK and their choice. I see this as an extreme example.

To be fair, however, there should be a way through rigs, skills, specialized ships, modules or a combination of all of them for a cloaking player to decrease the effect an OA (or group of OAs) has on the given ship. If an OA's strength is less than the cloak strength, the cloaked ship is harder to find. If it is more, then the cloaked ship is easier to find.

But timers, forced decloaking, activity sensors are all a resounding NO. Those are all non-active mechanics. It just takes what is perceived as unbalanced and puts it on the other side.


I really like the sound of this. Ofc by entering password you could have the effect negated on friendlies.

The ping that makes a shimmer/decloak would sound nice and fair. Or even have the option to "energize" a ship, increasing the decloaking range by X km..


I do see some issues with applying stuff to all of null, or just sov null. Some effects may have a huge impact on NPC null, without being able to counter it as you can't build the structures without sov..
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#538 - 2015-07-15 13:48:27 UTC
Give the OA a slot machine function, where it offers a 1 in 10 chance of randomly ejecting an online player from whichever outpost or POS they happen to be sitting in.


Seriously though:
Have the OA offer a hacking option, so that a hostile player who succeeds will appear as a friendly in the overview, local chat, or whichever systems emerges from this design.
To use an analogy from today, they are given a fake ID.
Effects of hack persist until player leaves system, or is offline longer than 15 minutes.
(This would resett on downtime as well)

Turnabout is fair play.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#539 - 2015-07-15 14:11:43 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Punx Evangeline wrote:
Can we please, please make our own deadspace pockets? Somewhere where we can build something grand?


Why would you need a deadspace pocket?

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Thoregon Aubaris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#540 - 2015-07-17 13:11:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Thoregon Aubaris
my two iskies:
- decloaking thingy = end of covert operations forever, space will be full of them
- stargates = better not in HS, reason see above
- removing local = yes, but thats what the OA is for, so no change there i suppose

@nullbears,
- you are allowed to fleet up, reship, call for help,...and fit some tackle (really helpful)
- you just got more in one patch than we wspace folks in the entire history of wh-history

If i could fly SOLO and make a "******** of isk" (©CCP) in my home with absolutely no risk (apart from being dumb), i would defend it. And I hope CCP thinks that way too.

Edit: Mobile cyno inhibitor anyone?